PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University

Nijmegen

The following full text is an author's version which may differ from the publisher's version.

For additional information about this publication click this link.

http://hdl.handle.net/2066/74938

Please be advised that this information was generated on 2020-02-23 and may be subject to

change.

Power and Status

Administration, appointment policies and social hierarchies

in the Roman Empire,

AD 193-284

Een wetenschappelijke proeve op het gebied van de Letteren

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen,

op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. mr. S.C.J.J. Kortmann,

volgens besluit van het college van decanen

in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 9 februari 2010

om 15.30 uur precies

door

Inge Arnolda Maria Mennen

geboren op 10 maart 1979

te Tilburg

Promotores

Prof. dr. L. de Blois

Prof. dr. O.J. Hekster

Manuscriptcommissie

Prof. dr. R.A.M. Aerts

Prof. dr. M. Peachin (New York University, New York)

Dr. J.W. Drijvers (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen)

ISBN 978-90-9025009-0

COVER BY

Michiel Stomphorst

PRINTED BY

Ipskamp Drukkers B.V.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................................... ii

ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... iv

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 1: CHANGING EMPERORSHIP: SETTING THE SCENE ............................................................ 14

1.1. Factors influencing emperorship between AD 193 and 284 ............................................................................. 15

1.2. Consequences for the position of the emperor .................................................................................................. 31

1.3. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 36

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPACT OF CRISES ON THE POSITION OF THE SENATORIAL ELITE ................ 39

2.1. Establishing the senatorial elite in the third century ......................................................................................... 40

2.2. Analyzing the selected families ........................................................................................................................ 44

2.3. Defining a nucleus within the senatorial elite ................................................................................................... 57

2.4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 66

EXCURSUS: PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE SENATORIAL ELITE FAMILIES............................................. 69

CHAPTER 3: PRAETORIAN PREFECTS AND OTHER HIGH-RANKING EQUESTRIANS .................... 117

3.1. The increasing responsibilities of high equestrians in imperial administration .............................................. 119

3.2. The status of high-ranking equestrians in the third century ............................................................................ 136

3.3. The praefecti praetorio: a case study .............................................................................................................. 138

3.4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 164

CHAPTER 4: HIGH-RANKING MILITARY OFFICERS: SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS VS GALLIENUS ....... 168

4.1. Septimius Severus and his military officers .................................................................................................... 169

4.2. Gallienus and his military officers .................................................................................................................. 188

4.3. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 209

CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................................... 216

APPENDIX -1- ......................................................................................................................................................... 222

APPENDIX -2- ......................................................................................................................................................... 224

APPENDIX -3- ......................................................................................................................................................... 231

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................................... 237

SAMENVATTING IN HET NEDERLANDS ....................................................................................................... 261

CURRICULUM VITAE .......................................................................................................................................... 269

ii

PREFACE

Roman imperial administration as well as power and status relations are fascinating, though

complicated, topics of research. For this dissertation, I had to become familiar with these

complex themes, examining, within about half a decade, a period of over a hundred years. It may

come as no surprise that this was not always easy. Fortunately, the generous support of others

helped me along the way. I would like to express my gratitude to those who helped me complete

this thesis.

First and foremost I am exceptionally grateful to Luuk de Blois, whose enthusiasm,

infinite trust, and support have been essential stimuli to my research. I have benefited greatly

from his inexhaustible knowledge on the third century and its administration. Olivier Hekster,

whose speed of speech and thought are peerless, regularly saved me from circular arguments and

methodological errors. His comments and questions helped me to improve my texts and put

things in a wider perspective.

I have received the friendship, encouragement and feedback of my fellow team members

of the „Image and Reality‟ project, Daniëlle Slootjes and Erika Manders. Lien Foubert and

Janneke de Jong, with whom I shared not only an office but also copious gossip, commented

thoughtfully and helpfully on my ideas and parts of my thesis as well. I want to thank them both

for being close friends.

During my PhD years I had the opportunity to spend considerable time abroad, at

inspiring institutes and in excellent libraries. This also afforded me the chance to meet some

people who helped me develop my ideas. At Heidelberg, I learned a lot about epigraphy and

discussed my research at a very early stage with Géza Alföldy and Christian Witschel. During my

stays at Oxford, I received a warm welcome from Edward Bispham, Alan Bowman and Fergus

Millar and profited from their expertise. In New York, I was fortunate to meet Michael Peachin,

with whom I had valuable conversations on the use of prosopography in examining Roman

administration and who agreed to be a member of my thesis committee. I am grateful for his

stimulating comments. Pierre Sánchez welcomed me to Geneva and enabled me to work there.

Noemi Poget is to be thanked for showing me around the Genevan libraries. It was there that the

first chapter of my thesis took shape. Finally, I would like to thank the staff of the Royal

iii

Netherlands Institute in Rome, and especially Gert-Jan Burgers, for the hospitality they extended

to me.

I am greatly indebted to David DeVore, who advised me and improved my English most

acutely. He came highly recommended, but still exceeded all expectations. Needless to say, any

remaining errors are my responsibility. Michiel Stomphorst also deserves a big „thank you‟ for

designing the cover of this thesis.

Warm thanks are given to all colleagues of the History department at the Radboud

University, especially those fellow ancient historians who have not been mentioned yet: Liesbeth

Claes, Pamela Doms, Roel van Dooren, Nathalie de Haan, Martijn Icks, Ylva Klaassen, Gerda de

Kleijn, Annelies Koolen, Ellen Kraft, Jasper Oorthuijs, Sanne van Poppel, and Rob Salomons.

Special thanks also go to Thijs Hermsen, Marloes Hülsken, Maaike Messelink, and the other

frequent visitors of the coffee corner, who made my work environment a socially pleasant place.

My friends and in-laws are to be thanked for their encouragements and expressing interest

in my work. I wish to thank my parents and my sister Susan for their unconditional support and

love, and my nephews Luuk and Timo for allowing me to occasionally forget all about Roman

history and reminding me of the significance of playing on the swings. The final words of thanks

are reserved for Folkert, who is probably the only physicist who is an expert on both particle

accelerators and third-century Roman imperial administration: his love, support, optimism and

patience have been indispensable. I am extremely thankful for everything he did.

This project, which is part of the larger research program „Image and Reality of Roman

Imperial Power, AD 193-284‟, could not have been carried out without the financial support

provided by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). Thanks are also due to

the Radboud University of Nijmegen, the EU‟s Lifelong Learning Programme Erasmus, the

Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome (KNIR), the Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds and the Stichting

Dr. Hendrik Muller‟s Vaderlandsch Fonds. An earlier version of much of section 2.2 was

published in O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn and D. Slootjes (eds.), Crises and the Roman Empire.

IMEM 7 (Leiden and Boston 2007).

Nijmegen, 23rd

November 2009

I.M.

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

AAntHung Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae

AE L’Année épigraphique

AJPh American Journal of Philology

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt

BJ Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und Vereins von

Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande

BMCRE H. Mattingly, C.H.V. Sutherland, E.A. Sydenham et al., Coins of the Roman

Empire in the British Museum (London and Oxford 1923 - )

CAH The Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge 1923 - )

CCG Cahiers du Centre Gustave-Glotz

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

Cod. Iust. Codex Iustinianus, ed. P. Krueger (Berlin 1900-1905)

CP Classical Philology

CQ Classical Quarterly

CR Classical Review

DNP H. Cancik, H. Schneider, M. Landfester (eds.), Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der

Antike. 13 Bände Altertum A-Z, 5 Bände Rezeptions- und Wissengeschichte A-Z, 1

Registerband (Stuttgart and Weimar 1996-2003).

HA Historia Augusta

IEph Die Inschriften von Ephesos (IGSK 11-17), 8 vols. (Bonn 1979-1984)

IESBS N.J. Smelser, P.B. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and

Behavioral Sciences (Oxford 2002).

IG Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin 1903 - )

IGBR Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria Repertae

IGRR R. Cagnat, A. Merlin, L. Chatelain, Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas

Pertinentes, 3 vols. (1, 3, 4) (Paris 1906-1927).

ILAfr Inscriptions latines d’Afrique (Tripolitaine, Tunisie, Maroc) (Paris 1923)

ILAlg Inscriptions latines d’Algérie (1922 - )

ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae

IMEM Proceedings of the Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire

(Roman Empire c. 200 B.C.-A.D. 476)

Inscr. It. Inscriptiones Italiae (Roma 1931 - 1986)

v

IRT J.M. Reynolds and J.B. Ward-Perkins, The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania

(Rome 1952).

JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology

JRS Journal of Roman Studies

LCL Loeb Classical Library

MEFRA Mélanges de l’École française de Rome: Antiquité

OCD S. Hornblower, A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary (third

revised edition, Oxford 2003).

ODE C. Soanes, A. Stevenson (eds.), Oxford Dictionary of English (second edition,

Oxford 2003).

PBA Proceedings of the British Academy

PIR Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saeculi I, II, III (1897-1899, second edition

1933 - )

PLRE A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale, J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman

Empire, 3 vols. (Cambridge 1971-1992).

P. Giss. O. Eger et al., Griechische Papyri im Museum des oberhessischen

Geschichtsvereins zu Geissen (Leipzig-Berlin 1910-1912).

P. Oxy. B.P. Grenfell et al., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London 1898 - )

RD Revue historique de droit français et étranger

RE A.F. Pauly, G. Wissowa and W. Kroll, Paulys Realenzyclopädie der classischen

Altertumswissenschaft (München 1894-1997).

REA Revue des études anciennes

REL Revue des études latines

RIB R.G. Collingwood; R.P. Wright, The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, vol. 1, 1965,

revised edition with addenda 1995).

SCI Scripta Classica Israelica

SDHI Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris

SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

TAM Tituli Asiae Minoris (Vienna 1901- )

ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

NOTES TO THE READER

Translations are taken from the LCL, unless otherwise noted. The numbering of Dio‟s Roman History

follows the LCL edition. „193/205‟ means that a person held a post for an unspecified period between 193

and 205. „193-205‟ means that a person held an office from 193 until 205.

1

INTRODUCTION

The reign of the emperor Diocletian is often considered a breaking point in Roman history.1

Many administrative, military, and financial reforms, which together transformed the government

of the Empire, were ascribed to this emperor and his colleagues. Clearly, the administration of the

Empire from Diocletian onwards differed greatly from the way the realm was administered under

the Antonine emperors in the second century AD. Beginning with the murder of the last Antonine

emperor Commodus, the Empire experienced a period of increasing instability, as a growing

number of internal and external military threats, epidemics, and banditry pressured the imperial

treasury and the existing administrative system. Modern scholars have accepted that the events of

the third century AD affected imperial appointment policies and social hierarchies and

foreshadowed the reforms carried through by Diocletian; yet the process by which appointments

and hierarchies changed, and particularly its effects on power and status relations, has hitherto

remained understudied.2 For a better understanding of the transformation from the early to late

Empire, however, a thorough analysis of these aspects is essential. Since a single study cannot do

justice to a theme so broad and so complex, the present study aims to contribute to the ongoing

debate on both Roman imperial administration and the relations between individuals involving

their use of power and status within the socio-political hierarchies in the context of the history of

the third century AD.

Aim of the present study

In this study, I explore administration, appointment policies and social hierarchies in the period

between AD 193 to 284, in order to define changing status and power relations between the

highest ranking representatives of imperial power at the central level. The appointment of the

emperor Pertinax, successor of Commodus, in 193 forms the starting point of the analysis; the

1 See, for instance, Barnes (1982), with additions in id. (1996); Rees (2004); Demandt-Goltz (2004).

2 Cf. Salway (2006), 115-116: „The structures of early imperial and later antique government are not in doubt but

neither the precise chronology nor the trajectory of the process by which the former was transformed into the latter is

entirely clear.‟ Illustrative is, for instance, the excellent volume by Swain and Edwards (2004), in which many

aspects (economics, culture, Christians, pagan religion, philosophy) of the transition from what we call the early to

the late Empire are discussed. Contributions on the changes in administration and social structures, however, are

limited to specific case studies dealing with Egypt and Italy, and hardly go into the process as a whole. Cf. Christol

(1997); Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 583-789. On Diocletian as extending and systematizing changes rather

than being the initiator, see Bury (1913), 127.

2

accession of Diocletian in 284 marks the end. As said, the year 193 inaugurated a period in which

many problems challenged imperial power. These internal and external difficulties had started to

manifest themselves during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, but from 193 problems accumulated

and increasingly afflicted the Empire and its rulers. In the second half of the third century, the

difficulties culminated in what is often described as „the third-century crisis‟. Although it is still

debated whether the events of the third century are best described as a „crisis‟, – whereas in

certain areas of the Empire there was continuity and relative peace – , it is quite clear that the

range of problems finally burdened both the execution of central imperial power and existing

status and power relations beyond their capacities.3 For signs of tension became apparent during

the reigns of the Severi, but the strains became exacerbated from 249 onwards, so that the

reorganization of imperial administration was realized, or rather formalized, under Diocletian. I

therefore consider it suitable to describe the third century as a period of crisis in the sphere of

imperial power, and for that reason this chronological demarcation has been chosen for this

study. Whether it was this period of instability which caused a reorganization of imperial

administration and changes in social structures, or whether it revealed a process which had started

off before, is not always easy to assess. As will become clear, in an era as hectic as the third

century, in which numerous spectacular events were happening concurrently, it is often difficult

for historians to trace dynamic forces, and to distinguish causality from correlation.

Power and status – concepts and their definitions

Before proceeding to delineate the relevant source material and the methodology applied, the

concepts „power‟ and „status‟ must be defined as they are used in the context of this study.

Concerning the term „power‟, it is relevant first to emphasize that we are dealing here

with political power. Clearly there are many different theories of power which are available to

modern historians.4 In general, one definition in the Oxford Dictionary of English, as „the

capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events,‟ suits the

3 For a recent survey of the application of the term „crisis‟, see Liebeschuetz (2007), who argues that the word crisis

is an appropriate description of what happened in the third century. Cf. De Blois (2002). Liebeschuetz cites Witschel

(1999), cf. id. (2004), as the most helpful critique of the „crisis model‟. The model was also critized by Strobel

(1993). 4 Cf. Noreña (2006), in which he complains about ancient historians‟ neglect to define „power‟, and refers to the

exemplary and influential formulations of Max Weber, Michel Foucault, and Michael Mann.

3

context of this study.5 This definition is closely associated with the definition of Max Weber, who

described power as the capacity of an actor within a social relationship to impose his will.6

Taking Weber‟s definition as a starting point, several political scientists in the twentieth century

developed the view of power as a type of social causation. Within the scope of this development

the political scientist Robert Dahl has described the process of power as follows: „A has power

over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.‟7 Dahl

furthermore associates power-as-causation with four dimensions of power: 1. base (the resources

or means that A uses to cause changes in others‟ behavior); 2. amount (some instances of power

refer to greater changes in behavior than others); 3. domain (those persons subject to the actor‟s

power); and 4. scope (the matters subject to the actor‟s power).8

If we apply the concept of „power‟ to the administration of the Roman Empire, at the top of

administration of course stood the emperor, who had absolute power. However, he deployed

imperial power for the most part indirectly, imperial officials being used to execute his power

throughout the Empire. All these men, whose delegated imperium associated them with the

emperor, also shared in imperial power. A relevant matter in this context is awareness of power.

A person‟s awareness of his own power, and the awareness others have of his power, largely

define a person‟s position within society. Awareness links power to the other concept dealt within

this study: status.

In general terms, status can be described as a person‟s „relative social or professional

position‟.9 In the context of this study, we are dealing with social status, i.e. prestige. In Roman

society, status was largely connected with social rank. Typical for Roman antiquity was the

5 „Power‟, in ODE², 1380. This definition can be further specified by adding the sub-sense „political or social

authority or control, especially that exercised by a government‟. Cf. also the definition given by Goldhamer-Shills

(1939), 171: „a person may be said to have power to the extent that he influences the behavior of others in

accordance with his own intentions‟, with the addition that „behavior is here to be understood as both covert and

overt behavior. Influence is to be understood as both an alteration of behavior and a maintenance of behavior as it

was, but other than what it would have been without the intervention of the power-holder.‟ 6 Weber (1947), 152, where he describes power as „the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be

in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests‟

(‘Macht bedeutet jede Chance, innerhalb einer sozialen Beziehung den eigenen Willen auch gegen Widerstreben

durchzusetzen, gleichviel worauf diese Chance beruht.‟). Foucault‟s notion that power may be understood as the

discursive production of knowledge, meaning, and „truth‟, should be noted here as well, but in the context of this

study Weber‟s sociological theory is particularly appropriate. 7 Dahl (1957), 202-203.

8 Summarized by McFarland in IESBS, s.v. Power: Political, 11936-11937; cf. Dahl (1957), 203; id. (1968), 407-409.

9 „Status‟, in ODE², 1728.

4

possibility of social mobility.10

The separate strata of Roman society were not static: individuals

could move up the social ladder if they had enough money or sufficient military or administrative

skills. Success stories of soldiers from the auxiliary units and freedmen who eventually gained

Roman citizenship and/or wealth are ample, but for the purpose of this study the advancement of

military cadre officers into the equestrian order and the entry of equites into the senatorial order

are most significant.11

Noble birth was an important criterion for admittance into the senate, but

as leading families regularly died out or fell into disgrace, the community had to be constantly

regenerated from below.12

Upward advancement could take one or even several generations: a

freed slave could not hold office, but his son or grandson could, for instance, obtain a local

magistracy and gain access to the equestrian or senatorial order for future generations. Although

it is hard to quantify the extent of social mobility accurately, it was a reality within Roman social

structure, even if only for a small minority.

Like power, status was multi-dimensional: factors such as birth, age, gender, education,

experience, ability, wealth, lifestyle and legal condition defined a person‟s status profile. When a

person scores highly on some status criteria but not on others, this inconsistency in status

evaluation is called status dissonance by sociologists.13

A social upstart like Trimalchio, who

appears in Petronius‟ Satyricon, for instance, may have been just as wealthy as any senator, but

could never become a senator.14

Status dissonance exposes the difficulty of status evaluation: it

was a relative process. How people saw each other and reacted to one another would have

depended significantly on their own status, for status varied enormously depending on the

observer and on the place. Or, to put it in other words: the status accorded to a person „depends

on the value hierarchy held by the individual making the status judgment, and the individual‟s

knowledge of the characteristics of the person judged‟.15

10

On social mobility in the upper strata of Roman society, see Hopkins (1978); Burton and Hopkins in Hopkins

(1983), 120-200; cf. Alföldy (1988). For a recent theory on social mobility on the local level, see Tacoma (2006), cf.

Chapter 2, section 2.3. See Hope (2000), 142-146, with further references, for a recent overview of social mobility in

Roman antiquity. 11

A primuspilus, the highest ranking centurion of a legion, for instance, was as a rule accepted into the equestrian

order immediately after serving in this rank for a year, thus attracting further opportunities for advancement. See

DNP, s.v. primuspilus; cf. s.v. centurio; Dobson (1978). 12

Hopkins (1978); Burton and Hopkins in Hopkins (1983), 120-200. 13

Hopkins (1978), 108-111. Cf. Weaver (1978), who describes the case of slaves and freedmen who served the

emperor: they had access to power and influence, but never lost their stigma of servitude. 14

Petronius, Satyricon 26-41; 47-79. 15

Goldhamer-Shills (1939), 181, cf. 179. Cf. Purcell (1983), 126; Garnsey-Saller (1987), 118; Hope (2000), 149-

150; see Hope (2000), 144-146, for a detailed discussion of Trimalchio‟s position within Roman social structure.

5

Thus, the observation of status in the ancient source material is more problematic than the

observation of power.16

Whereas status evaluation of individuals in antiquity is highly

problematic, conclusions about the status of the ordines can be drawn.17

As will become clear in

this study, status is undeniably linked to power: changes in one of Dahl‟s four dimensions of

power, sooner or later led to changes in status relations between power-holders.

Representatives of imperial power

Roman imperial power at the central level was mediated by men belonging to the upper strata of

Roman society. This situation has famously been schematically illustrated by Alföldy through a

social pyramid with the emperor at the top, surrounded by senators and equestrians, the

privileged classes who shared in power and prestige and filled the most important and honorific

governmental posts.18

As is obviously well-known, in republican times, the senate had been the traditional ruling

body of Rome which provided governing magistrates. In imperial times, the senate continued to

play a role in government, although service to the state increasingly meant service to the

emperor.19

In the first three centuries AD the senate had about six hundred members whose entry

into the ordo depended first on a minimum value of one million sesterces and second on election

to key offices. In principle the senate was responsible for the election of new members, yet in fact

election was by the emperor, who could also appoint his own nominees. The senate was not a

hereditary body, but many sons of senators followed their father‟s footsteps, and the privileges of

the office endured for three generations.20

Senators were deployed in all kind of spheres: they

held civil-administrative, military, legal, and financial positions. In some posts, for instance

provincial governorships, various kinds of duties were combined. It should be taken into account

that the senate had its own internal hierarchy. Successful senators could reach the prestigious

office of consul. Even more successful were those senators who continued their careers after the

consulate. Those who held a second consulship or shared their consulate with the emperor as

16

Cf. Finley (1985), 51, who admits that status itself, is a vague word and an imprecise concept. 17

Hopkins (1978) 105-107. Cf. Hope (2000), 126: „… the definition of an individual‟s status involved complex and

sometimes contradictory and contested factors, which could be compounded by the geographic and chronological

breadth of the Empire. It is thus often impossible to provide a finite definition of an individual‟s status.‟ 18

Alföldy (1988), 106. The decuriones who also belonged to the upper strata according to Alföldy‟s pyramid are not

mentioned here, as they mediated imperial power at the local instead of the central level, and are the subject of

Daniëlle Slootjes‟ study Cities and Leadership in the Roman Empire (forthcoming). 19

Alföldy (1988), 102; cf. Talbert (1984). 20

Digesta 23, 2, 44.

6

their colleague, and those who were appointed to govern the provinces of Africa and Asia as

proconsules, or were made responsible for the capital as praefectus urbi, reached the pinnacle of

the senatorial cursus honorum, and can surely be counted as the top layer of the senatorial class.

The second order was of course the equestrian one, which was considerably larger than

the senatorial order. As with the senatorial order, membership of the equestrian order depended

on a man‟s wealth; from Augustus onwards, the minimum property requirement was 400,000

sesterces. The formal method of entry was by imperial grant. Many wealthy provincials qualified

for membership, but only a minority actually pursued a political or military career. Like senators,

equites could hold all kind of posts, but during the Principate differentiation between financial-

legal careers and military careers gradually emerged. The most successful equites reached the

posts of praefectus annonae (responsible for the corn supply of Rome), praefectus Aegypti

(governor of Egypt), and praefectus praetorio (commanding the praetorian cohorts), which

formed the summit of the equestrian career.

In the Augustan era, Roman citizens residing in Rome and Italy monopolized all high

positions in central government, while wealthy provincials settled for local offices. The

privileged position of those based in the Italic peninsula which was the original basis of the

Empire, however, gradually became less important to the emperors than the political and

administrative unification of the Empire. By the third century, leading provincials from all

corners of the Empire competed for traditional Roman honors and were steadily assimilated into

the Roman higher orders.21

This process is demonstrated well by the origins of the emperors: the

first emperors were Romans; by the end of the first century an emperor born in Spain reached the

imperial throne; by the end of the second century the Empire had an emperor born in Africa; and

a few decades later a man born in Syria ruled the Empire.

Again, we should not forget the diversity inherent within this upper section of the

hypothetical pyramid. Even within the ordines, heterogeneity should be taken into account.22

Therefore, I have focused on the highest layers within the upper strata of Roman society, the

group which formed the political elite of the Empire: the emperors themselves, the senatorial

nucleus, and high equestrians who served as senior military officers in the army and as senior

civil administrators. Senators who did not reach the consulship, and lower equestrian specialized

21

See especially Halfmann (1979). 22

Cf. Hope (2000), 137.

7

administrators in the provinces are not included. This choice is motivated, first by the crucial

functions of this top elite in the third-century‟s developing administrative system, second by the

emphasis on the political elite in the available evidence, and finally by the socio-political events

in the early fourth century: under the emperor Constantine, the equestrian and senatorial orders

were fused into one new expanded order of clarissimi.23

As before, entry into this highest order

was based upon a combination of hereditary expectation, property requirement, and actual tenure

of key offices or imperial grant. How certain events of the third century diminished the

distinctions between the high equestrians and senators and foreshadowed this fusion will become

clear in this study.

Source material

The available source material for this study can be divided into three main categories: 1.

„memorial epigraphy‟24

; 2. historiographic evidence; 3. administrative documents and writings.

The largest corpus of evidence consists of memorial inscriptions. Such epigraphic texts

recorded names of officials, their functions, and often part or even the whole of their cursus

honorum. These inscriptions were entrusted to non-perishable material, such as stone or bronze,

and were explicitly meant to be seen by the public in order to state a person‟s socio-political

position. Funerary inscriptions, honorary inscriptions, building inscriptions, dedications to

divinities, military diplomas, and milestone inscriptions fall into this category. Recovered in a

variety of contexts, they were displayed on behalf of all senior representatives of imperial power.

Inasmuch as they represent all social layers examined in this study, and were intended to reflect

officials‟ socio-political rank, they provide valuable evidence for this study.25

Some remarks,

however, should be made on the Roman epigraphic habit. As MacMullen has noted in his outline

of the contours of this epigraphic habit in both Latin West and Greek East, the number of

inscriptions grew steadily over the first and second centuries AD, with a peak around the turn of

23

Imperial slaves and freedmen, whose influence corresponded primarily to their respective proximity to the center

of power, the emperor and his family, are excluded as well, as their power was based on informal authority and as

there are hardly any objective sources available which can clarify the impact of their influence. 24

This designation is based on Eck (2002a), 134. Cf. Eck (2009), in which he argues against the term cursus

honorum inscriptions. 25

Cf. Eck (2002a), 134. See also Meyer (1990), 83, who refers to epitaphs as status-indicators. Cf. the anthropologist

Cannon (1989), 437-438.

8

the second and third centuries, but decreasing sharply after the reign of Caracalla.26

Although

several scholars have tried to explain the peak, as well as the third-century decline and local

differences, none of these explanations so far have been fully satisfactory. As has been recently

argued, it is more probable that „a variety of mundane and interconnected forces – economic,

demographic, and social, as well as physiological, and perhaps political – gradually shaped the

prevailing cultural practice in different localities‟.27

When viewed from our perspective, the

Empire-wide epigraphic behaviors may seem regular and uniform, but this view is likely to be

deceptive. Yet, although the third-century decline in the number of inscriptions cannot be

univocally explained, it is a trend which any researcher dealing with the third century should bear

in mind.

The historiographic evidence has its own merits and complications. For the period under

discussion, there are two contemporary ancient authors: Cassius Dio and Herodianus. Dio was a

senator from Bithynia who lived from mid-second century until circa AD 229. The 80 books of

his Roman History, written in Greek, narrate the sequence of historical events from the

foundation of Rome until the year AD 229. Large parts of his work have only survived as

epitomes by the Byzantine monks Xiphilinus and Zonaras.28

When using Dio‟s work as a source,

one should remember that he was a senator of Greek origin, who combined fondness of the

Graeco-Roman culture with the conservative ideals of the Roman senatorial elite. How he treats

individual emperors‟ reigns reflects the values and interests of a senator, and whether an emperor

was labeled as good or bad depended on senatorial expectations.29

Having completed a successful

senatorial career under the Severan emperors, Dio evaluated the rise of those he regarded as

uncultured upstarts negatively.30

The second contemporary author is Herodianus, a native of Asia Minor who lived from

circa AD 175 to 255, and who probably was (the son of) an imperial freedman. His History of the

Empire after Marcus (Ab excessu divi Marci), encompassing eight books written in Greek, covers

the events from the death of Marcus Aurelius in AD 180 to Gordianus III‟s accession in AD 238.

26

MacMullen (1982), 233-246; id. (1986), 237-238; cf. Mrozek (1973), 113-118; id. (1988), 61-64; Roueché (1989),

19-20; Meyer (1990), 74-96; for an overview, see Bodel (2001), 6-10. 27

Bodel (2001), 7. On p. 6-7, Bodel gives a summary of current explanations with further references. 28

Millar (1964), 1-4; cf. Barnes (1984); De Blois (1998-1999). 29

De Blois (1998), 3405-3415; De Blois (1998-1999). 30

Cassius Dio was praetor in 194 (Dio 73, 12, 2); consul suffectus ca. 204/205; curator of Pergamum and Smyrna

ca. 217/218; proconsul Africae ca. 222; legatus Augusti pro praetor of Dalmatia and later of Pannonia Superior

under Severus Alexander; and ultimately consul II ordinarius in 229. On his career, see PIR² C 492; Leunissen

(1989); Thomasson (1996), 87-88, no. 119; De Blois (1998-1999), 268, note 3 with further references.

9

He seems to have been a subordinate official in Rome and Asia Minor in the early third century

AD.31

Herodianus‟ work has survived completely. Like Dio, Herodianus displays affinity with

Graeco-Roman culture and traditions, but not from a senator‟s perspective. His work shows a

tendency to moralize, often resorts to rhetoric, and is not always reliable in reproducing facts.32

He seems to have used the work of Dio as a direct source for his own historical work.33

The

works of Dio and Herodianus are valuable sources as they could draw on contemporary

knowledge, yet a certain degree of subjectivity, especially toward uneducated social upstarts,

should be taken into account. Moreover, since the historians did not have access to

comprehensive information on imperial administration, certain matters are not recorded by

them.34

Unfortunately, no contemporary work of history covers the entire Empire between 238

and 284. The only rather detailed reports on parts of that period are the vitae in the Historia

Augusta. This work, composed in Latin, consists of a collection of imperial biographies

describing the lives of the emperors from Hadrianus (AD 117-138) up to Numerianus and

Carinus (AD 282-284/285). Although the names of six authors are mentioned, it is nowadays

generally assumed that the Historia Augusta was composed by a single author at the end of the

fourth century AD.35

Although some thirty biographies have survived, those of the emperors

between 244 and 253 have been lost, the biographies of the Valeriani are only fragmentary, and

those of the Gallieni are incomplete. The history of the second and third centuries is generally

perceived from the perspective of the non-Christian, senatorial aristocracy of the city of Rome,

and the emperors are assessed in terms of their behavior toward that class.36

The historical value

of the individual vitae varies considerably, for valid information is combined with anecdotes,

obvious inventions and forgeries. Up until the Severan period, the work seems to follow a reliable

source, probably the work of Marius Maximus, who wrote biographies from Traianus to

Elagabalus which did not survive, and who is quoted several times.37

Herodianus‟ work was

drawn upon for the vitae from Clodius Albinus to Maximus and Balbinus, and Dio is not named

31

Alföldy (1989a). 32

On Herodianus and his work, see Alföldy (1989a); De Blois (1998), 3415-3431; Sidebottom (1998); Zimmermann

(1999), esp. 285-319. 33

Kolb (1972), 159-161. 34

Cf. Dio 53, 19. 35

Syme (1986), 211; 219; following Dessau (1889), 337-392, who was the first to reject the information on the

authors contained in the work itself. 36

Johne (1976). 37

On Marius Maximus, see Birley (1997b).

10

but was probably also used.38

The biographies of the soldier emperors and of the usurpers are

unreliable: they contain many invented documentary texts, forged letters, anachronisms and even

references to usurpers whose very existence remains in question.39

However, even these more

unreliable parts of the Historia Augusta contain information on emperors and administrators

which is confirmed by other sources. Details mentioned only in the Historia Augusta should thus

always be viewed with scepticism, but should not be rejected beforehand.40

The accounts of Cassius Dio, Herodianus and the author of the Historia Augusta are

complemented by several authors, who were rather brief in their discussion of the period AD 193

to 284. One was the fourth-century author Aurelius Victor, who wrote the Historiae Abbreviatae,

also known as the Liber de Caesaribus, describing the emperors from Augustus to Constantius II.

Like Dio and the author of the Historia Augusta, a senatorial perspective informs Victor‟s

history, as he focuses on the moral decline of the senatorial class and criticizes the dominant role

of the military.41

The Epitome de Caesaribus, a summary of the Liber de Caesaribus, was falsely

ascribed to Aurelius Victor as well, but this has been refuted.42

Brief accounts on the history of

the third century can also be found in the works of the late Roman historians Eutropius, Festus,

and the Byzantine authors Zosimus and, as mentioned above, Zonaras.43

The majority of the administrative documents, like for instance codicilli, have not

survived, as they were not meant to be public and were written on perishable materials.44

From

Egypt, of course, we have a considerable number of papyri, some of which contain information

on the administration of the Empire and/or the names of administrators.45

Very specific

information on administration can also be derived from the legal writings in the Corpus Iuris

Civilis, a collection of fundamental works in jurisprudence issued by order of the Byzantine

emperor Iustinianus I. This Latin corpus includes the Codex Iustinianus (a collection of imperial

38

Kolb (1972), 159-161. 39

Syme (1971), 54-77, who refers to these lives as secondary vitae; and more recently Brandt (2006), 11-24. 40

One biography, the Vita Severi Alexandri, is more of an ideological „mirror of princes‟ than a piece of

historiography. See Bertrand-Dagenbach (1990). 41

Cf. Aur. Vict., Liber de Caes. 37, 7; 40, 13. 42

On Aurelius Victor and his work, see Bird (1984). 43

On these authors and their work, see, for instance, Paschoud (1971-1989); Baldwin (1978); Ridley (1982); Bird

(1988); Bleckmann (1992); Kettenhofen (1993). Other (fragmentary) sources can be added to this list, for instance

the letters of Cyprianus (Alföldy 1973), fragments of Dexippus (Martin 2006), Eusebius‟ Historia Ecclesiastica, the

Oraculum Sibyllinum 13 (Potter 1990), and the so-called Res Gestae Divi Saporis written in Middle Persian, Parthian

and Greek (Kettenhofen 1982; Frye 1984). Most of these additional sources are collected in Hartmann (2008a), with

further references. 44

Cf. Eck (2002a), 132. 45

On third-century papyri, see De Jong (2006).

11

constitutions from Hadrianus to Iustinianus), the Institutiones (an introductory legal text book

with binding legal force); the Novellae (new laws that were passed after AD 534) and the Digesta

(a collection of classical writings of jurists mainly from the second and third centuries), which

constituted the core of Iustinianus‟ legal reforms.46

The merits and limitations of prosopography

This study is largely based on prosopographical research. Prosopography aims at gaining

evidence about patterns of relationships through the investigation of individual persons, their

offices, honors, ancestry, marriages and other connections. All the source material described

above contains prosopographical data, information which contributes to the identification of

persons, their interrelations, and the outline of their careers, albeit not to the same extent.47

Prosopography offers both merits and limitations as a research method. Consequently, it has both

been defended and criticized by scholars.48

The use of prosopographical material for elucidating

the imperial decision process and the innermost politics of the Roman Empire, for instance, has

been rejected.49

However, the positive contribution of prosopography „to our knowledge of every

important aspect of the government and administration, and very many important aspects of the

society, of the Roman world is beyond question.‟50

As long as one keeps in mind that

prosopographical information does not tell the complete story, and as long as conclusions derived

from prosopography are checked against and supplemented with contemporary literature and

documents, prosopography remains a legitimate research method in most scholars‟ estimates.51

A study like this would never have been possible without existing studies in which

prosopographical material is readily available. The Prosopographia Imperii Romani (PIR) and

the first volume of the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE), edited by Jones,

Martindale and Morris, are invaluable, as is Thomasson‟s Laterculi Praesidum (LP) which list

senatorial and equestrian governors of the provinces of the Roman Empire from Augustus to

46

On the Justinianic codifications, see Kunkel (1973), 163-176; cf. Zwalve (2004), 85-138. 47

In general inscriptions contain more detailed prosopographical data than a literary source such as Herodianus. 48

Syme, (1968), 145: „One uses what one has, and there is work to be done‟. Contra Toynbee (1965), 327: „Able and

active minds, reduced to a starvation-diet of knowledge, have fallen greedily upon the additional fare that the

„prosopographical‟ approach to Roman history offers‟. Cf. Graham (1974), 136-157; Burton and Hopkins in Hopkins

(1983), 156 note 49; and Eck (2002a), 131-152, esp. 133-136. On the merits and potential of prosopography as a tool

of research, see also Cameron (2003), passim. 49

Graham (1974), 155. 50

Graham (1974), 138. 51

Graham (1974), 137-139; Eck (2002a), 136.

12

Diocletian. Also essential are prosopographical studies by Christol and Leunissen.52

Other

publications focus on specific reigns, regions, positions or careers.53

For the present study I have

profited greatly from the findings and the prosopographical data collected by these scholars.

Structure of the book

The structure of this book follows the structure of the upper strata of Roman society, as the

chapters are arranged according to the social ranks of the representatives of imperial power at the

central level. The first chapter focuses on the emperors and the development of the imperial

office in the third century. Chapter 2 deals with the impact of third-century events on the

senatorial elite. Chapter 3 illustrates the changing position of high equestrians in general, and the

power and status of the third-century praetorian prefects in particular. Finally, in Chapter 4, case

studies on military officers under Septimius Severus and Gallienus will shed light on the

changing composition of the military set, and the changing relationship between emperors and

their senior officers.

The development of emperorship is a topic which has received abundant attention in

recent studies. Chapter 1 of this study provides a summary of current ideas on the transformation

of emperorship in the course of the third century. Concurrently, the history and problems of the

third century are introduced, as well as themes which will be dealt with in subsequent chapters.

The chapter attempts to measure the extent to which third-century events affected the power and

status of the emperor.

When discussing the position of senators in the third century, most scholars emphasize the

changes and the negative effects for senators in general. Several factors, however, indicate that

there was at least some continuity in senatorial power and status. Chapter 2 tracks members of the

senatorial order who were able to ensure continuity for themselves, and the „strategies‟ by which

they could safeguard or even develop their position. Through a detailed prosopographic analysis,

a senatorial nucleus will be defined. Then, several families within this nucleus will provide

examples illustrating the position of senatorial elite families throughout the third century. This

52

Leunissen (1989); Christol (1986); id. (1997). 53

To name a few: Howe (1942); Barbieri (1952); Pflaum (1960-1966); Crook (1975); Devijver (1976-1980); De

Blois (1976); Dobson (1978); Dietz (1980); Birley (1988); Thomasson (1996); Körner (2002); Kreucher (2003).

Many articles in various periodicals can be added to this list.

13

will generate some conclusions about how imperial appointment policies affected the traditional

senatorial elite in the third century and how crises impacted their status and power.

Chapter 3 discusses the position of high equestrians in the third century. To speak of a rise

of the equites in the third century is problematic, as the ordo consisted of a large number of

members and had a highly heterogeneous character. A further complicating factor was that the

equester ordo of the first and second centuries was a completely different group of people than

the equestrian order of the late third century. Therefore, Chapter 3 will start by sorting out in

detail which equestrians saw their power increase in the third century and in which spheres, and

to what extent this influenced their status. The second part of this chapter, a case study on the

praetorian prefects, serves to further display and illustrate the developing position of high

equestrians. As will become clear in this chapter, the changing composition of the set of high

equestrian officers cannot be dissociated from their changing position between 193 and 284.

Chapter 4 deals with the position of senior military officers, a group in which both

senators and equestrians played roles. Several factors indicate that men who exercised military

power increasingly influenced the course of events in the third century, and secured and even

strengthened their own positions. Two cases clarify the development in the status and power of

senior military officers: the military set under Septimius Severus at the beginning of the period

under discussion, and high-ranking military officers under Gallienus, in the third quarter of the

third century. These two cases represent two crucial moments in third-century history, and are

chosen because of the combination of the internal similarities and distinctions.

Finally, by analyzing the various senior power-holders involved in Roman imperial

administration at the central level by social rank, this book sets out to clarify some notions on the

development of power and status relations between the second and fourth centuries.

14

CHAPTER 1

CHANGING EMPERORSHIP:

SETTING THE SCENE

For any scholar who is examining power and status relations in Roman imperial times, the

position of the emperor is a logical starting point. Although it seems obvious that the emperor‟s

office held the greatest power within the Empire, it cannot be accepted unquestioningly that

emperors kept exercising the highest power in the same way, given that the Roman world

changed so much between AD 193 and 284. However, while the position of individual emperors

was hardly ever unchallenged in the third century, especially from 235 to 284, the emperor as

such remained the focal point of the Empire. Under Diocletian, emperorship underwent several

changes. Most apparently, four men governed, instead of one under the Tetrarchy, and the

emperors presented themselves as domini rather than principes.1 There had been a major shift

away from emperorship as it had functioned in the first and second centuries AD. These changes

made by Diocletian of course resulted from a process of transition that had started long before.

The development of emperorship – or elements of it – in the third century has received

abundant attention in recent studies.2 As noted above, a discussion of the power and status of the

third-century emperor, focusing particularly on developments that could potentially have

undermined his authority, is indispensable for my study. Yet, as much of this has already been

dealt with in detail elsewhere, this chapter will be brief and will serve as an introduction to the

history and problems of the period AD 193 to 284. It will also contain a summary of recent

theories on the transformation of emperorship, and introduce the other parts of this book.

1 See Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 39, 4, on Diocletian being called dominus. For recent studies on

emperorship under the Tetrarchy, see, for instance, Rémy (1998); Rees (2004); Demandt-Goltz (2004); Boschung-

Eck (2006). 2 See, for example, Johne (2008), and generic overviews such as Hekster (2008), 56-68; Sommer (2004). Millar

(1992) and Ando (2000) do not focus on the third century only, but are extremely useful to anyone who studies

emperorship between 193 and 284.

15

1.1. Factors influencing emperorship between AD 193 and 284

The changing background of the emperor3

As the Principate developed from a Republic in which the nobility gathered in the senate carried

out the essential offices, and the princeps combined spheres of power previously held by

senatorial magistrates, it was only natural that the emperorship was initially assigned to a

senator.4 Eventually, however, equites could also ascend the imperial throne. During the first and

second centuries AD, the principle of a senatorial princeps was endured, although toward the end

of the second century men who had risen from equestrian ranks can be found among the imperial

candidates. Both Pertinax and Pescennius Niger were Italic homines novi, who embarked upon an

equestrian career, but rose to senatorial rank through adlectio. Pertinax even was of very humble

origin: he descended from a freedman.5 Septimius Severus was the son of an eques, yet he had

immediately initiated a senatorial cursus honorum. The Augusti of the first and second centuries

AD were all either from the Italic peninsula, or originating from the Latin-speaking aristocracy of

the Western provinces.6 Like Pertinax and Pescennius Niger, Didius Iulianus was also born in

Italy. His father was a member of the aristocracy of Mediolanum (modern Milan), and his mother

came from an eminent North African family. Septimius Severus descended from the municipal

aristocracy of Lepcis Magna in Africa Proconsularis, and Clodius Albinus, who supported

Severus during his first years of reign, was also of noble African birth.

In 217, a new development occurred: Opellius Macrinus, a man of equestrian status, was

proclaimed emperor. He was praetorian prefect at the time of his proclamation, and thus belonged

to the top of the ordo equester. Macrinus was of African origin, but he was ethnically Moorish

3 This section is largely based on the information gathered by Kienast (1996), 152-263; Johne (2008); and several

biographies on individual emperors or specific periods in the third century, such as De Blois (1976); Dietz (1980);

Birley (1988); Körner (2002); Kreucher (2003). 4 The literature on the transition of Republic to Principate is immense. On the emperor as a senator, see, for example,

Wallace-Hadrill (1996); on the senate in the early Empire, see Talbert (1984); id. (1996). 5 Pertinax: adlectus inter tribunicios (or aedilicios?), circa 170/171. Niger: adlectus inter praetorios, 180/183?.

Avidius Cassius, the son of an equestrian orator who managed to enter the senate under Marcus Aurelius and who

seized power in the East in 175, may be added to this category of imperial candidates with equestrian roots. See

Kienast (1996), 142-143; 152-153; 159-160. Cf. Vespasianus, who also became emperor with a fairly humble

background. According to Suetonius, Divi Vesp. 12, 1-2, his father was of equestrian rank. 6 The Iulio-Claudian emperors stem from ancient patrician gentes bound to Rome; the Flavians belonged to the Italic

municipal aristocracy; Traianus‟ family came from Italica, in Hispania Baetica, which was also the hometown of

Hadrianus‟ family. It remains unclear, however, whether Traianus and Hadrianus were born in Italica. On Traianus

compare Kienast (1996), 122, and Eck (2002b), 10; on Hadrianus, see Syme (1964), 142-143; Birley (1997), 10; and

Canto (2002). Antoninus Pius was from Lanuvium, Italy; Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were born in Rome;

and Commodus in Lanuvium. This development coincided with a more general gradual shift of power from the

Empire‟s geographical center: in the second century, men from the East entered the Senate in Rome. See Halfmann

(1979).

16

and his family belonged not to the African aristocracy, but to the lower strata of the provincial

population of Mauretania Caesariensis. Macrinus‟ family lacked connections with senators in

Italy, which Severus‟ family had held. Only Pertinax had been of similarly humble origin, yet he

had risen to senatorial rank by the time he was proclaimed. Soon, however, the Syrian princesses,

who were related to the Severan house through Severus‟ wife Iulia Domna, engineered that

Macrinus be deposed and replaced by Elagabalus, claiming that the latter was a son of the former

emperor Caracalla. After a reign of about four years, Elagabalus was himself replaced by Severus

Alexander, the last emperor from the Severan dynasty.7

Whereas Macrinus‟ proclamation constituted merely an interlude within the senatorial

Severan dynasty, the accession of Maximus Thrax in 235 made clear that an eques acting as

emperor had been no aberration. Unlike Macrinus, Maximinus had not been praetorian prefect

and therefore was not the highest-ranking eques at the time of his acclamation. Maximinus was a

professional soldier who had worked his way up to the equestrian position of praefectus

tironibus, recruiting and training new soldiers in the Rhine area. In 217, when the imperial throne

was initially offered to Oclatinius Adventus, the Empire could already have had his first

professional military officer as emperor. Yet Adventus, who was very old and lacked the standard

elite education, had acknowledged that he was not suited for the position and declined.8 About

twenty years later, however, the first emperor with a pre-imperial career as professional military

man was a fact. This coincided with another novelty: Maximinus, who was either from Thracia or

Moesia Inferior, was the first emperor who originated from the border region in the lower-

Danube region, the so-called Illyrian area. Maximinus‟ reign did not last very long: in 238, the

senate recognized senator Gordianus I, proconsul of the province of Africa Proconsularis, as the

new emperor, and he appointed his son Gordianus II as his co-ruler. Maximinus did not give in,

and mobilized the Numidian legion to defeat the Gordiani. Nevertheless, a second senatorial

revolt the same year, followed by mutiny among Maximinus‟ soldiers as they besieged Aquileia,

caused the death of Maximinus and his son, whom he had elevated to the rank of Caesar.9

Maximinus was succeeded by Pupienus and Balbinus. The latter was a patrician of

ancient nobility, probably from Hispania Baetica. He had been governor of Asia under Septimius

7 On the role the Syrian empresses played in the accession of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander and during their

reigns, see Levick (2007), 145-163. 8 Dio 79, 14, 2; Herodianus 4, 14, 2. On Oclatinius Adventus‟ career, see also sections 3.3 and 4.1.

9 On the senatorial revolt in 238, see Dietz (1980); Haegemans (2005).

17

Severus and consul iterum with Caracalla in 213. Pupienus was a senatorial vir militaris of Italic

origin, perhaps a homo novus, who had worked his way up to the top of the senatorial cursus

honorum under the Severi.10

Both maintained good relations with the emperors of the Severan

dynasty as imperial amici.11

The proclamation of two emperors might be seen as an attempt to

restore the old republican principle of two consuls governing jointly. Yet, it is more likely that

each of the two was supported by a different section of the senate, each wanting its own

representative on the throne: the traditional senatorial aristocracy on the one hand, and a

relatively new crop of senators on the other hand who had ascended through the senatorial career

path through military posts and other positions in the imperial service.12

The choice of the senate

obviously did not please the Praetorian Guard. Backed by the urban plebs in Rome, the praetorian

cohorts first forced Balbinus and Pupienus to elevate Gordianus III, a descendant of the Gordiani,

to the rank of Caesar, and then dethroned the sitting Augusti. The young Gordianus III, who was

born in Rome under Severus Alexander, was proclaimed as their successor. From 241, the

Empire was ruled de facto by praetorian prefect Timesitheus, a situation which positioned other

equestrian men the chance to enhance their power.13

When Gordianus died in 244, another

praetorian prefect attained the imperial throne: Philippus Arabs, descending from local potentes

from Arabia. For the third time in thirty years, the unwritten rule that the emperorship was

reserved for a senator was broken. Philippus presumably had a mixed administrative and military

career. His brother Priscus, also of equestrian rank, was virtually his co-regent, ruling the eastern

part of the Empire. Yet, remarkably, Priscus was never officially elevated to the rank of Caesar

or Augustus, nor even granted senatorial status. This underscores the changing role of senators

within the socio-political hierarchies, an issue which will regularly recur in this study.14

Philippus Arabs was eventually dethroned by Decius in 249. Ironically, the emperor had

created the opportunity for Decius to seize power, by sending this senator from Sirmium to the

Danubian border region to restore order. The united troops of Pannonia and Moesia assigned to

his command proclaimed Decius emperor in Pannonia. It is assumed that in the 230s Decius, as

10

In the context of this study the phrase vir militaris is used to refer „to anyone who had some experience of military

life or had chanced to make a reputation in warfare‟. Cf. Campbell (1975), 11-12. Whether there was a homogeneous

group of specialist viri militares with a distinctive career and special promotion, is debated among scholars. On the

debate, see Campbell (1975) and Birley (1992), 14-15. 11

See Crook (1975), 155; 159. 12

Johne (2008), 589-590. 13

On Timesitheus‟ career, see section 3.1. 14

By the reign of Philippus Arabs, elevating a co-emperor had become current practice, see section 1.2.

18

governor of Moesia Inferior and of Germania Inferior successively, had been involved in Severus

Alexander‟s German expedition of 234-235. Under Maximinus Thrax, Decius was appointed

governor of Hispania Citerior, and under Philippus he became city prefect of Rome. Like Decius,

the next emperor Trebonianus Gallus was a consular senator at the time of his proclamation. He

originated from Italy, and was governor in Moesia when he seized power after Decius‟ death.

Aemilius Aemilianus was also a senatorial governor of Moesia Superioris when he was

proclaimed emperor by the troops and marched against Gallus in Italy. Gallus had to call back to

Italy Valerianus, who then held a special command in the upper-Danube border region to ward

off Germanic tribes. On their way to Italy, however, when Valerianus received word that Gallus

had been defeated, his troops proclaimed him emperor. By autumn 253, Aemilianus had been

killed by his own men, and Valerianus was recognized as the new emperor. He made his son

Gallienus his co-ruler, elevating him to the rank of Augustus. Valerianus and Gallienus were the

last emperors in the third century who were definitely part of the traditional senatorial

aristocracy: Valerianus was related through marriage to the influential senatorial gens Egnatia

from Italy, and was a vir consularis from circa 238 onwards.15

He had apparently held a leading

position in the senate under Decius.16

With the joint reign of Valerianus and Gallienus in the

middle of the third century, the traditional emperorship, shaped and carried out by the senatorial

aristocracy, came to an end.

In 268, Gallienus became the victim of a conspiracy of his general staff, which consisted

mainly of men of Illyrian origin. The emperor was murdered and succeeded by one of these

generals, Marcus Aurelius Claudius, presently known as Claudius II Gothicus. According to the

author of the Historia Augusta, Claudius was from Dalmatia or Moesia Superior, and most likely

he was cavalry commander at the time the plot was carried out. When Claudius died in 270, he

was succeeded by his brother Aurelius Quintillus. Their nomenclature indicates that they

probably were new citizens, whose family had gained citizenship in 212 due to the Constitutio

Antoniniana.17

Quintillus only reigned for a few weeks. In 270, Domitius Aurelianus was

proclaimed emperor; he seems to have been cavalry commander (dux equitum) under both

Gallienus and Claudius, and was probably involved in the plot against Gallienus as well. He too

15

On the Egnatii, see Chapter 2, especially no. 8 in the Excursus. 16

Zonaras 12, 20; Johne (2008), 596; Körner (2002), 350-351. 17

See Buraselis (2007) and Hekster (2008), 45-55, for a summary on the debate on the Constitutio Antoniniana and

its consequences with further references.

19

was born in the Illyrian area and of humble origins.18

It is likely that he worked his way up from

being an ordinary soldier to becoming a military officer of equestrian rank. Aurelianus reigned

for about five years and was succeeded by Claudius Tacitus, who has for a long time been

considered a senatorial rather than a soldier emperor. Whether this attribution is correct is highly

disputable. By all odds, Tacitus was a senator who had risen from equestrian ranks, and who had

been consul before being proclaimed emperor, which distinguished him from his immediate

predecessors. According to Zonaras, he was proclaimed emperor by the army, but the author adds

that thereupon Tacitus marched to Rome, and only accepted the imperial insignia when the

proclamation was sanctioned by the senate. A senatorial renaissance, as claimed by the Historia

Augusta, did not occur in the 270s. Yet, Tacitus may have paid more attention to the senators

than the average emperor in the second half of the third century did. If so, this was probably what

earned him his image.19

Tacitus‟ successor was Annius Florianus, praefectus praetorio at the time of his

proclamation and allegedly Tacitus‟ brother. Considering the nomenclature, he can only have

been a half-brother on the maternal side. Florianus only ruled for a few months before he was

overthrown by Marcus Aurelius Probus. This man resembles Claudius and Aurelianus in that his

name leads one to suspect that he was a new citizen, and he is, in fact, said to have been of

humble origin and born in Sirmium. A centurion who had worked his way up to a position as

tribune is supposed to have been his father. Probus himself was apparently a miles who

eventually became a military commander (dux), probably of equestrian rank, in the East under

Tacitus. Not long after Tacitus‟ death, Probus was proclaimed emperor by troops in the East.

Although his reign lasted a relatively long six years or so, he was killed by soldiers in Sirmium,

and his praetorian prefect Carus became the new Augustus. Carus was from Gallia Narbonensis,

but nothing further is known about his ancestors. After a few months, Carus made his sons

Carinus and Numerianus his co-regents. When Numerianus died in November 284, Diocletian

seized power.

18

According to the Historia Augusta (HA, Vita Aurel. 3, 1), Aurelianus either was from that part of Moesia which

was renamed Dacia Ripensis during his reign, or from Sirmium (Pannonia Inferior). On his humble origins, see also

HA, Vita Aurel. 3, 1. The statement found in the Epitome de Caesaribus 35, 1, that he was the son of a senator‟s

tenant (colonus) may have been an invention. 19

Zonaras 12, 28; HA, Vita Taciti; Johne (2008), 598-599; cf. 601-603. The distinction between „soldier emperors‟

(„Soldatenkaisern‟) and „senatorial emperors‟ („Senatskaisern‟) stems from the middle of the 19th

century. As by now

it has become clear that this matter should be approached with more subtle distinctions, the division is no longer

commonly used. For an overview on this matter, see Hekster (2008), 57-61.

20

As has become clear from this brief narrative, a profound change in the background of the

Roman emperors can be detected in the period between AD 193 and 284. Whereas the emperors

of the first and second centuries had all been senators at the time of their proclamation, by the

third century equites could also ascend the imperial throne. At first this happened incidentally,

but from 268 onward most emperors were of equestrian rank when they were proclaimed. This

was no sudden change: from the end of the second century, senatorial newcomers, men who had

risen from equestrian ranks, can be found among the imperial candidates; they can be considered

precursors to the third-century equestrian emperors. This process furthermore entailed a

transformation in the career-related background of the imperial candidates. The emperors who

dominated until the 230s had mostly undergone either a traditional and relatively short senatorial

career, if they belonged to the patrician senatorial aristocracy, or else worked their way up to the

top of the senatorial cursus honorum through military posts and other positions in the imperial

service. In 235, Maximinus Thrax became the first emperor who rose from being a common

soldier to a professional military officer and who, from that position, eventually became emperor.

From then on, most emperors reached their position through essentially military posts, and from

268 onward most imperial candidates were men who started their career as professional military

men, and had risen to the ranks of equestrian military officers. This obviously coincided with

another trend from the middle of the third century: the troops operating in the periphery of the

Empire played an increasingly decisive role in the proclamation of new emperors. Moreover, the

geographic origin of the emperors shifted markedly from the center to the periphery. The

emperors of the first and second centuries, and even those ruling the Empire in the first three

decades of the third century, all either had Italic roots or combined provincial roots with close ties

to senators based in the Italic peninsula. As the first emperor from the Illyrian area, Maximinus

Thrax‟s rule was the harbinger of a growing trend: the majority of the emperors of the „Central

Empire‟ from the second half of the third century were Illyrians.

Instability caused by internal struggles and external threats

Third-century emperorship also adjusted to the unstable situation in the Empire, caused mainly in

the border regions by both internal struggles and external threats. This instability brought about

short reigns and rapid changes of imperial power. After a period of expansion, the Roman Empire

21

had reached its territorial peak at the beginning of the second century AD. While the emperor

Traianus was still conquering new areas, Hadrianus‟ and his successors‟ policies aimed at

consolidating territory already conquered.20

Instead of being aggressors, the Romans became

defenders who prevented other people from crossing their borders and invading their lands. The

policy worked well for some decades, but Marcus Aurelius was confronted with not only severe

incursions of external enemies on both the northern and eastern frontiers, but also a serious

internal threat as Avidius Cassius claimed imperial power in Egypt in 172/173. The events during

his reign foreshadowed the critical situations which would afflict the Empire and its rulers

between AD 193 and 284.21

Relations with the tribes inhabiting the area north of the frontiers of the Empire, beyond

the Rhine and the Danube, had not been continually hostile, yet they had never been stable either.

The Romans had combined diplomacy and warfare to deal with these people. Various emperors

had allowed groups of tribesmen to settle within the Empire and had recruited some of them into

the Roman army. Around the end of the second century, tribes such as the Alamanni and Franks

sought food, lands to farm, workers and protection in the Rhine and Danube areas. As their needs

increased over the course of the third century, raids across the frontiers grew more frequent and

the invasions more severe. The Eastern Empire presented similar problems. Invasions by the

Goths, Quadi, Vandals, and Sarmatae pressured the northeastern border regions and the Balkans.

From 255 onward, Goths also threatened Asia Minor from overseas.22

Incursions like these

occurred during the reign of Caracalla, in the 230s under Severus Alexander, and subsequently

under Maximinus Thrax, and recurred regularly from the 240s onward.23

20

On imperial frontier policy, see, for instance, Millar (1981); Mattern (1999); Wilkes (2005). 21

On the external and internal problems during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, see Birley (1987), esp. 140-210; 249-

255. 22

For a detailed discussion of the situation beyond the northern frontiers in the third century, see, for example, Piso

(2005); Goltz (2008a), id. (2008b). On the Germanic tribes, see further Todd (2005); for the Goths, see, for instance,

Wolfram (2001); on the Alamanni in the third century, Drinkwater (2007). 23

Caracalla fought against the Alamanni along the borders of Germania Superior and Raetia in 213 (HA, Vita Car.

5). Severus Alexander was up against Germanic tribes from 234 onward (Herodianus 6, 7, 5; HA, Vita Sev. Alex. 59).

These fights along the limes in Germania Superior and Raetia were continued by Maximinus Thrax and lasted until

236. From 236, Maximinus campaigned against Sarmatae and free Dacians. Philippus Arabs fought against Carpi in

the Danube provinces between 245 and 247 (Zosimus 1, 20; Piso (2005), 51-59). Decius campaigned against Goths

in the Balkans in 250-251. After a stay in the Balkans, Gallienus fought the Franks at Cologne, and then the Iuthungi

and Alamanni in Italy in the 250s. At the end of his sole reign, he campaigned against the Goths and Heruli in the

Balkans. Claudius Gothicus defeated the Alamanni in Northern-Italy in 268 (Epitome de Caesaribus 34, 2), and the

Goths in the Balkans in 269 (Zosimus 1, 45, 1). Aurelianus contended against the Vandals, the Iuthungi and the

Sarmatae in Pannonia in 271, and against the Goths in the Balkan area (HA, Vita Aurel. 22, 2); he decided to give up

the province of Dacia because of repeated invasions in 272. In 273, Aurelianus fought against the Carpi in the

22

In the eastern border of the Empire, the Romans had had to deal with the Parthian

empire.24

Yet by the reign of Severus Alexander the Parthian empire had been weakened by civil

war, so that in 226 the Parthians were finally defeated by the Sassanid dynasty and lost their

empire to the Persians. The latter took over the Parthians‟ role as Rome‟s most feared enemy in

the East. The Sassanids, however, were more aggressive and eager to expand their empire

westwards into Roman territory. Above all, they wished to conquer the fortified transportation

routes along the Euphrates, from Palmyra to Characene, and strongholds in Middle and Northern

Mesopotamia, such as Hatra, Nisibis and Edessa.25

The first war against the Persians took place

during the reign of Severus Alexander. Other major battles were fought between 240 and 272

under the Persian ruler Shapur I, and the Persians won most of these.26

In 260, this even led to

one of the most humiliating events in Roman history, when the emperor Valerianus was captured

by the Persians.27

The increasing pressure on the northern and eastern frontiers caused unrest within the

Empire. Distrust and disaffection brought about internal strife: the Romans started to fight among

Balkans, on his way back from the East (HA, Vita Aurel. 30, 4). Around 275 substantial parts of Gallia were invaded.

After Aurelianus‟ successor Tacitus campaigned against the Goths in Asia Minor in 276, Probus contended against

the Franks and Alamanni in Gallia, against Germanic tribes in the Rhine area in 277-278, against the Burgundians

and Vandals in Raetia (Zosimus 1, 68), the Sarmatae in the Illyrian area (HA, Vita Prob. 16, 2), and Isaurians in Asia

Minor (HA, Vita Prob. 16, 4; Zosimus 1, 69-70). Carus fought against the Sarmatae in the Balkans, and his son

Carinus defeated Germanic tribes in 283. See Halfmann (1986), 223-242, and Kienast (1996), 162-263, for further

references. Septimius Severus‟ campaign against the Caledonian and Maeatae tribes in Britannia in 208-211 ended in

peace under Caracalla, which lasted for most of the third century. These tribes should thus not be counted among the

continuous enemies in the northern border area of the Empire. On the Severan expedition in Britannia, see Birley

(2005), 195-203. 24

Between 193 and 226, several emperors fought against the Parthians. Septimius Severus campaigned against the

Parthians in 195 and again in late 197-198 (Dio 75, 1-3 (p. 194-201); 76, 9.; HA, Vita Sept. Sev. 16, 1-5). Caracalla

initiated a war against the Parthians in 216 (Dio 79, 1ff.; Herodianus 4, 11, 2ff.), which after his death was concluded

by Macrinus with a peace treaty in 217 (Dio 79, 26). See Halfmann (1986), 216-231, and Kienast (1996), 156-171,

for further references. On relations between Rome and Parthia, see Campbell (1993). 25

Drexhage (1988). 26

Severus Alexander waged war against the Persians between 231 and 233 (Herodianus 6, 4-6; HA, Vita Sev. Alex.

50); Gordianus III led an expedition against them in 243-244, whose unsuccessful result caused unrest among the

Roman soldiers, whereupon they killed the emperor. Peace was bought by Gordianus‟ successor Philippus Arabs in

244. In 254/255, Valerianus started a campaign against the Persians, who had taken Antiocheia in 253 (SEG 17,

528).The war against the Persians seems to have been continued after Valerianus‟ death by Ballista and Septimius

Odaenathus. Aurelianus was on his way to fight the Persians in the East when he was murdered in 275 (HA, Vita

Aurel. 35, 5; Zosimus 1, 62, 1; Zonaras 12, 27). Carus, finally, campaigned against the Persians, before he died in

283 (HA, Vita Car. 8, 1; Zonaras 12, 30). For further references, see Halfmann (1986), 231-242, and Kienast (1996),

177-259. For a more detailed discussion of the situation beyond the eastern frontiers in the third century, see, for

instance, Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 474-580; on the relations between Rome and the Persians, see also

Kettenhofen (1982) and Frye (2005). 27

See Festus, Breviarium 23; Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle 155-71 (with commentary in Potter 1990) for the Roman

point of view, and Res Gestae Divi Saporis, 9-11 (with commentary in Frye 1984) for the Persian viewpoint.

23

themselves as soldiers in various parts of the Empire each proclaimed their own emperors. The

army had always been able to make or break emperors, but this had never happened in such quick

succession as it did in the third century, especially from 235 onward.28

The situation in 193, when

after Pertinax‟ death three new emperors were proclaimed – Septimius Severus by the troops in

Pannonia Superior, Didius Iulianus by the praetorian guard in Rome, and Pescennius Niger by the

troops in Syria – foreshadowed what would become the common state of affairs after the death of

the last Severan emperor: soldiers proclaimed more than fifty emperors in about fifty years. Some

of these emperors survived only a few months before being killed either by rival armies or by the

same troops that had initially supported or even proclaimed them. Turmoil and hostility emerged

mainly among soldiers in areas which were afflicted by external pressure, and it was the troops in

those areas – the Rhine and Danube region, the Balkans, on the Syrian borders – who proclaimed

new emperors most frequently. Usurpers arose in those corners of the Empire where the emperor

was absent, so that he became merely a somewhat distant concept to subjects and resident army

divisions. Thus, as support for a coup lay present there, imperial power was not represented in a

decisive and satisfactory way. Dio, for example, reports that two legati legionis stationed in Syria

were proclaimed emperor in 219, not long after Elagabalus had left the province for Rome.29

The

emperor‟s decision to depart for the capital thus proved dangerous. The areas most frequently

afflicted by external pressure and internal strife between emperors and counter-emperors, were

obviously most affected by third-century events, either positively, as the presence of troops could

stimulate trade, or negatively, as rampaging armies could disrupt social and economic life.30

Yet, the internal problems were not confined to clashes between Roman troops. In 260,

during the reign of Gallienus, shortly after Valerianus was captured by the Persians, the Empire

was in danger of splitting up. Problems seemed ubiquitous, and the Roman emperor was deprived

of control of two large areas and the armies stationed in each. In the West, a desperate situation

led to the onset of a Gallic counter-empire, as Marcus Cassianus Latianius Postumus, Gallienus‟

military commander on the Rhine, rebelled against the emperor. Postumus defeated Germanic

28

On the significance of military support for emperors until 235, see Campbell (1984), esp. 365-414. 29

Dio 80, 7, 1, on Gellius Maximus, legatus legionis IV Scythicae, proclaimed in Syria Coele, and …s Verus, legatus

legionis III Gallicae, whose full name is unknown and who was proclaimed in Syria Phoenice at about the same

time. Both of them were killed shortly after their proclamation. 30

Cf. De Blois (2007c), 8. Most scholars now acknowledge that regions such as Africa, Syria and Pamphylia

prospered in the third century; see, for instance, Borg-Witschel (2001), 61; Duncan-Jones (2004); Mitchell (1993),

238.

24

tribes who had invaded Italy and this made him a local savior.31

As a consequence, Postumus

took up the title Germanicus maximus, and was proclaimed emperor by his soldiers, after which

he marched upon Cologne, where Gallienus‟ son Saloninus represented imperial power.32

Saloninus was put to death and, probably at the end of the summer of 260, some three months

after Valerianus‟ demise, Postumus established an autonomous Gallic empire (Imperium

Galliarum), including the provinces of Gallia, Britannia and Hispania, and initially also Raetia.33

He patterned his territorial organization after the Roman Empire, but unlike other usurpers

Postumus refused to march on Rome. Obviously, the situation would not have been acceptable

for Gallienus, but he did not manage to solve the problem: the Gallic empire continued to exist

after Postumus‟ death in 269, and lasted until the summer of 274.

The East experienced a similar situation. Valerianus‟ capture left the eastern provinces of

the Roman Empire unprotected. Septimius Odaenathus, a nobleman from the rich Syrian caravan

city of Palmyra, gathered an army and fought off the Persians. Not only did Odaenathus help

Gallienus fight Shapur and recover Mesopotamia, but he also killed the usurper Quietus.

Odaenathus‟ position after his victory is heavily disputed; but it seems that, although he was de

facto ruling the East, his continued allegiance to Rome kept him from becoming a usurper such as

Postumus.34

Since there is no evidence for secession in those years, Gallienus could still claim to

be emperor of Syria and its wider surroundings in the 260s, so there was no reason for him to

attempt to recover the area. The situation changed, however, when Odaenathus was murdered in

267/268, and was succeeded by his wife Zenobia and their son Vaballathus. Palmyra seems to

have changed course, and, as Palmyrene influence spread in the East, it became unclear whether

the rulers of Palmyra still accepted Roman sovereignty. In 272, the emperor Aurelianus organized

a campaign against the „Palmyrene empire‟ to restore order in the East.35

The solution which had

31

AE 1993, 1231 (11 September 260, Augsburg, Raetia), a dedication to Victoria for her aid in destroying the

Semnoni and Iuthungi. The inscription was erected by the otherwise unknown Marcus Simplicinius Genialis. On the

inscription and its significance, see Potter (2004), 256-257; cf. Jehne (1996). 32

Zosimus 1, 38, 2; Zonaras 12, 24, 10-12. Allegedly, Saloninus and his tutor Silvanus had claimed for themselves

the booty of a battle which Postumus had distributed amongst his soldiers. See Bleckmann (1992), 242-248. 33

On the Gallic empire, see König (1981); Drinkwater (1987). Emperors and officials of the Gallic empire are not

included in my analysis of administration and social hierarchies, as the evidence on the political elite of that area and

their careers is too limited for the purpose of this study. Cf. Burnand (2005), vol. 2, 567-611, on men from Gallia in

the second half of the third century. 34

On Odaenathus‟ career, see section 4.2. 35

On Palmyra‟s change of course, see Millar (1993), 170-173; on the „Palmyrene empire‟, see Hartmann (2001);

Hartmann (2008c). Rulers and officials of the „Palmyrene empire‟ are not included in my analysis, as its

25

temporarily stabilized the East had developed into a situation in which the center had clearly lost

control. After defeating Zenobia and Vaballathus, Aurelianus decided to solve the Western

usurpation as well: in 274, the emperor defeated Tetricus, the last ruler of the Gallic empire.

Local military superiority had been the power base of both Odaenathus in the East and Postumus

in the West. The fact that both of them settled for local authority enabled both the Gallic empire

and the autonomy of Palmyra to last for more than ten years, as the Roman imperial center did

not consider them an immediate threat. Yet the emergence of these breakaway „states‟ at the

height of the third-century crises seriously challenged the unity of the Empire, which in a way

undermined the authority of the Roman emperors at the center in the 260s, who were unable to

solve the situation. Besides, this development increased the influence of the Danube forces and

their leaders within the „Central Empire‟.

Under these unstable circumstances, Roman emperors continued to express dynastic

expectations. Almost all the emperors who had the chance promoted a successor by exalting their

son or sons to the rank of Caesar or Augustus.36

Dynastic claims were often enforced by

appointing their sons as fellow consuls. Frequently, emperors chose a symbolic moment in their

reign to make such dynastic statements, so that the appointments coincided with, for instance, the

defeat of a rival or the celebration of a victory over external enemies.37

Yet, only one successful

dynasty (the Severan) existed between 193 and 284. From the death of Severus Alexander

onward, ruling emperors no longer managed to establish a dynasty which would last for any

considerable length of time. The Gordiani, although there were three of them, did not found an

enduring dynasty, as the first two only ruled a limited territory for about three weeks in 238, and

administrative structures are poorly understood and probably more comparable to an Oriental kingdom than to the

„Central Empire‟. 36

By exalting sons to the rank of Caesar or referring to them as princeps iuventutis, emperors expressed dynastic

expectations. Yet, they clearly did not consider the time ripe to actually designate them as their successors by making

them Augusti. The motive for such restraint must have varied from case to case. According to HA, Vita Pert. 6, 9,

Pertinax prevented his son from being called Caesar, but some inscriptions refer to his son as princeps iuventutis

(CIL 3.14149, 35 = ILS 5842; CIL 3.14149, 38 = ILS 5845 (both Arabia)). 37

Some examples: Caracalla replaced Clodius Albinus as Caesar when Albinus was proclaimed Augustus by the

troops in Britannia. Not long after Albinus was defeated, Caracalla was exalted to the rank of Augustus and Geta

became Caesar. Geta became Augustus when the Severi were staying in Britannia, during which he had to exercise

jurisdiction and administer affairs of the Empire, while Severus and Caracalla were fighting battles. See Herodianus

3, 14, 9; Birley (1988). Diadumenianus became Caesar not long after Macrinus had become Augustus, and he was

exalted to the rank of Augustus when the troops in Emesa had abandoned his father. See Dio 79, 17, 1; 19, 1; 34, 2;

37, 6; Herodianus 5, 4, 12; HA, Vita Diadum. 1, 1-5. Iulius Philippus became Caesar when Philippus arrived in

Rome after his acclamation and was exalted to the rank of Augustus when his father had returned to Rome after his

triumph over the Carpi and Germans. See Körner (2002); on the dates when these titles were conferred, see Kienast

(1996), 162-203, with further references.

26

Gordianus III, who was very young when he was made Augustus, only reigned for about six

years, during which time the imperial power lay de facto in the hands of his praetorian prefect

and father-in-law Timesitheus. The emperor Valerianus made obvious attempts to establish a

dynasty, as he made his son Gallienus his co-ruler. Valerianus Iunior, probably the son of

Gallienus, was elevated to the rank of Caesar during the joint reign of Valerianus and Gallienus.

He died, however, in 257/258, even before the senior emperor Valerianus was captured.38

By the

time Gallienus became sole ruler, the authority of the dynasty must have suffered terribly by the

humiliation of Valerianus‟ capture by the Persians. Saloninus, Gallienus‟ younger son, who had

been made Caesar in 258, and represented the imperial family in Cologne in 260, became the

victim of Postumus‟ claim for power in the Gallic area. If Gallienus still had dynastic hopes at

that point, they probably ended with the death of Saloninus.39

Valerianus‟ dynasty had not

survived for more than two generations either. The lack of dynastic stability which arose from

235 onward obviously weakened the position of the Roman emperor further, as an important base

for legitimating imperial power, especially toward the military – which had been relevant from

the beginning of the Principate onward – was lost.40

Changing priorities

Both the emperors‟ changing backgrounds and the rapid turnover of power sources and players,

caused by internal strife and external pressure, altered the demands of the emperor‟s office in the

third century: in short, emperors‟ priorities changed. The rulers of the first and second centuries

AD spent much time handling legal, diplomatic, and civil-administrative matters.41

As supreme

ruler, the emperor was the ultimate judge and administrator in the Empire, and held the final

responsibility for all governmental decisions. It was to him that citizens could appeal as a last

resort when injustices could not be remedied locally.42

Decisions of the emperor‟s representatives

38

On Valerianus Iunior, see Kienast (1996), 220-221 with further references. 39

Marinianus, consul suffectus in 268, either was a son, a nephew, or a cousin of Gallienus. Yet he was only born in

265 and thus no serious candidate for succession at the end of Gallienus‟ reign. Nevertheless, Marinianus was killed

in 268 on the instigation of the senate, according to Zonaras 12, 26; see Kienast (1996), 222. 40

On the value attached to dynasties by the military, see Timpe (1962), 88; Lendon (1997), 254. Johne (2008), 612-

614, argues for an increasing (formal) importance of the empresses in the third century. His assumption is mainly

based on the expansion of the titulature of the Augustae. See also Horster (2007), who stresses an increasing

importance of dynastic themes on coins in the third century. 41

For an elaborate survey of the duties of the emperor and the resultant writings, see Millar (1992), 203-272. 42

In practice, however, emperors even in the first and second centuries often refrained from interfering at the local

level. See Herrmann (1990).

27

were liable to appeal, but judgments by the emperor himself were not. The relative accessibility

to the emperor from Augustus onward, especially in Rome and Italy, had been one of the

advantages of the early Empire.43

The emphasis Fronto places on the emperor‟s ability to practice

eloquentia in a letter to Marcus Aurelius is not strange. As Fronto observes many things had to be

achieved by words and letters.44

Although the emperor obviously had secretaries and advisers to

assist him in these tasks, his good standing and reputation improved if he was able to write his

own speeches and pronouncements. As Millar has shown, the emperor‟s role in these matters was

mostly passive: his pronouncements normally reacted to initiatives from other parties. Cases

where the emperor actively sought information from any other source seem rare.45

When the Empire was at war, the emperor had yet another important duty: to command

the army divisions involved.46

Due to the increasing military threats in the period under

discussion, the emperor‟s military function must have become ever more important and time-

consuming. In combination with the changing backgrounds of the emperors, most of whom were

military men after 268, emperorship acquired an increasingly military character. Consequently,

emperors met more military leaders and officers than civil administrators and senatorial

magistrates. However, the rise of these emperors with a military background made the ruler less

accessible for inhabitants of the Empire who did not belong to the military: they were not the

most obvious points of reference for non-military men, and it was sometimes even difficult for

them to trace who was emperor at any given time. Non-military tasks continued to be part of

imperial duties in the third century, but it is only logical that the third-century emperors,

especially after 249, prioritized their military responsibilities, and had less time for responding to

individuals‟ or cities‟ requests. Although it is true that economic problems in various areas of the

Empire, and the lack of clarity on the authority at the local level, may have caused an increase in

43

Millar (1992), 465-477, on residents‟ accessibility to the Emperors. 44

Fronto, Ad M. Antoninum de eloquentia 2, 7: Considera igitur an in hac secunda ratione officiorum contineatur

eloquentia stadium. Nam Caesarum est in senatu quae e re sunt suadere, populum de plerisque negotiis in concione

appellare, ius iniustum corrigere, per orbem terrae litteras missitare, reges exterarum gentium compellare, sociorum

culpas edictis coercere, bene facta laudare, seditiosos compescere, feroces territare. Omnia ista profecta verbis sunt

ac litteris agenda. („Therefore consider whether in this second category of duties the study of eloquence should be

included. For the duties of emperors are: to urge necessary steps in the senate; to address the people on very many

matters in public meetings; to correct the injustices of the law; to send letters to all parts of the globe; to bring

compulsion to bear on kings of foreign nations; to repress by their edicts the faults of the provincials, give praise to

good actions, quell the seditious and terrify the fierce ones. All these are assuredly things to be achieved by words

and letters.‟ (transl. Millar (1992), 203). 45

Millar (1992), 266-267. 46

Cf. Hekster (2007), 91: „The Emperor was the military leader par excellence.‟

28

the number of petitions sent to the emperor, there is no evidence that the emperor personally dealt

with all of these.47

According to Cassius Dio, Septimius Severus spent a considerable part of his mornings

holding court:

The following is the manner of life that Severus followed in time of peace. He was sure to be

doing something before dawn, and afterwards he would take a walk, telling and hearing of the

interests of the Empire. Then he would hold court, unless there were some great festival.

Moreover, he used to do this most excellently; for he allowed the litigants plenty of time and he

gave us, his advisers, full liberty to speak. He used to hear cases until noon.48

Septimius Severus obviously was accessible to his subjects. The author, however, explicitly states

that this routine applied only to peacetime. An inscription of an imperial petition sent to

Gordianus III in 238 by petitioner Aurelius Pyrrhus, a praetorian soldier, on behalf of the

villagers of Skaptopara attests that in those days people still approached the emperor to solve a

problem – abuse by soldiers and officials –, yet the emperor‟s response makes clear that he did

not see the need to deal with the problem himself: he sent the villagers straight back to the

governor and chose not to get involved in the matter.49

Circa 245, Philippus Arabs was

approached by another soldier named Didymus. He presented the emperor with a similar petition:

the villagers of Aragua in Asia Minor asked for help, after abuse by soldiers and military officers.

That soldiers, and not orators as was (more) common in most of the first and second centuries,

delivered the messages, indicates both the changing role of the military and the changing means

of communicating between the Empire‟s inhabitants and the emperor. Philippus Arabs, a former

eques who most likely had gained experience in the military before he became emperor, and who

was fighting the Carpi when the petition reached him, was approached most easily by a soldier,

who knew his way into military camps, and could deliver the message to the emperor promptly:

47

On petitions sent to the emperors in the third century, see Hauken (1998); cf. Hekster (2008), 62-63, with further

references. 48

Dio 77, 17, 1-2. Cf. Herodianus 3, 10, 2; and Dio 52, 33, 5, where Maecenas advises the emperor Augustus to

select equestrian men to assist him in his judicial work, his correspondence, and in handling the decrees of the states

and the petitions of private individuals. This may refer to the range of emperors‟ duties in Dio‟s time, the late second

and early third centuries. 49

CIL 3.12336 = AE 1995, 1373 (Skaptopara, Thracia). Soldiers, visitors, and even the procurators and governors

with their staff confiscated goods and demanded accommodation of the villagers of Skaptopara without payment.

Skaptopara with its spa-like water was an attractive place to visit. See Halloff (1994); Hauken (1998), 82; 98; 117;

De Blois (2007a), 506.

29

there was no need – and perhaps no time – for a formal declamation.50

How the emperor

responded to the petition from Aragua is unknown.

For non-military men from the center of the Empire, communication with the emperor

was not only hampered by the changing backgrounds and origins of the emperors, but also by the

fact that emperors resided in Rome less often, as military crises in the East and the West called

for imperial presence elsewhere. Nevertheless, most third-century emperors did spend some time

in Rome during their reign, either shortly after their proclamation or for celebrations such as

triumphs, imperial marriages, or festivals.51

Even in the second half of the third century most of

the emperors stayed in Rome between waging their wars, during the winter months. They were at

least present in the capital when they took office as consul ordinarius, often in January of the

year after their proclamation.52

Although Rome retained at least a symbolic importance for third-

century emperors, long-term stays in the capital were no longer an option for most of the

emperors ruling after 250, as they spent most time in border regions, or in cities situated along the

traditional routes from the West to the East. Aquileia (in northern Italy), hosted several emperors

as the starting-point of several important roads which led to the northeast of the Empire.

Septimius Severus may have stayed there for a while when he was on his way from Pannonia to

Rome to claim the throne in the spring of 193. Maximinus Thrax faced resistance when he

wanted to cross Aquileia in 238, and Quintillus resided in the city when he was defeated by his

rival Aurelianus. The latter also crossed the city when he returned from Rome to fight the Goths

in Pannonia in 272. Aquileia‟s significance becomes clear from the fact that an imperial palace

was constructed there in the fourth century, in which emperors resided frequently.53

50

CIL 3.14191 (Asia). See Hauken (1998), 150-153; Mitchell (1999), 43-44; on the message being delivered by a

soldier, see also Hekster (2008), 40-41. Cf. Alston (1995), 86-96, and Whitehorne (2004) on the role of centurions

conveying petitions to higher officials at provincial and imperial level. 51

Some examples: Septimius Severus and Caracalla stayed in Rome in 202 when Caracalla married Plautilla. In 204,

Severus celebrated the Ludi Saeculares in the capital; Severus Alexander went to Rome to celebrate his triumph over

the Persians in 233; Philippus Arabs came to the capital after he had made peace with the Persians by buying them

off in 244, and after defeating the Carpi and Germanic tribes in 247. In 248 he was present in Rome when he

celebrated the city‟s thousandth birthday; Gallienus organized games in Rome in 262, probably in honor of his

Decennalia. See Halfmann (1986), 216-242. 52

Trebonianus Gallus, Valerianus, Claudius Gothicus, Aurelianus and Carus went to Rome some time after their

accession to the throne, and opened the next year as consul ordinarius. Gallienus returned to Rome at the end of 260,

at the beginning of his sole reign, and was consul ordinarius in 261 as well. Aurelianus spent two winters in Rome

(270/271 and 271/272), and even returned there to celebrate his triumph over Palmyra in 273, according to Zosimus

1, 61, 1. After defeating several usurpers, Probus celebrated a triumph in Rome, possibly at the end of 281. He

probably was still there when he started his term as consul ordinarius in 282 as well. See Halfmann (1986), 241. 53

Halfmann (1986), 216; 233; 239; on Septimius Severus‟ stay in Aquileia, see also Birley (1988), 99; on

Aurelianus‟ stay, see Zosimus 1, 48, 1.

30

Perinthus and Byzantium in Thracia on the other hand, were frequently visited by third-

century emperors who were on their way to the Eastern half of the Empire. Septimius Severus

probably spent the winter of 193/194 in Perinthus, when he was on his way to Syria to fight the

Parthians. Coins suggest that he stayed there again on the return trip to Rome. Coins also attest

the presence of Caracalla in Perinthus in 214. He must have passed it en route from the Balkans

and Danubian provinces to Asia.54

According to Dušanić, Philippus Arabs crossed Perinthus on

his way from the Danubian provinces to the East, where he intended to wage war against the

usurper Iotapianus, when he learned about the rebellion of Decius in Pannonia and was killed.55

Byzantium, meanwhile, sided with Niger and was besieged in 196. Septimius Severus rebuilt the

city, which quickly regained its prosperity. Aurelianus crossed Byzantium on his way to Syria,

where his first battle against Palmyra took place, and might have spent the winter months there

on his way back. He was killed between Perinthus and Byzantium in August/September 275.56

Other frequently visited cities included Antiocheia (Syria) and Alexandria (Egypt), which

with Byzantium/Constantinople grew out to be the most important cities in the eastern part of the

Empire in the fourth century. While Alexandria received visits from the Severan emperors mainly

out of curiosity, Antiochia often provided the base for the third-century emperors‟ operations

when they were fighting the Parthians, Persians or Palmyrenes.57

Tyana (Cappadocia), Nicaea

(Bithynia) and Nicomedia (Bithynia) were also visited regularly by third-century emperors. The

locations of Augusta Treverorum (modern Trier) and Colonia Agrippinensis (modern Cologne)

exposed the cities to barbarian attacks, while the political intrigues of resident administrators and

generals exposed them to civil war. Postumus chose them as capitals in the Gallic empire. The

cities retained their importance from 284 onward as important centers, accommodating emperors

and usurpers, imperial administrators, and bishops. Sirmium in Pannonia Inferior deserves

attention as well. When it was conquered by the Romans in the first century BC, it already was a

settlement with a long tradition. The city, situated on a strategic military location, became the

54

See Halfmann (1986), 216-217; 224, with further references. 55

Dušanić (1976); Halfmann (1986), 235. In addition, Numerianus may have been killed in Perinthus by his

praefectus praetorio Aper on his way from Asia to Europe. See Halfmann (1986), 242. 56

HA, Vita Aurel., 35, 5; Zosimus 1, 62, 1: Zonaras 12,27; Halfmann (1986), 239. As is well known, Byzantium was

renamed Constantinople in the fourth century and became the capital of the Eastern part of the Empire. 57

Alexandria was visited both by Septimius Severus when he travelled through Egypt in 199/200 and by Caracalla in

215. Severus Alexander had planned to go there, but called it off. Antiocheia hosted Caracalla during his journey in

Asia Minor in 215. Macrinus used it as his base of operations against the Parthians, and Severus Alexander and

Gordianus III attacked the Persians from Antiocheia. During the reign of Valerianus, Antiocheia was invaded by the

Persians and Aurelianus‟ battles against Palmyra took place in the city. See Halfmann (1986), 218-240.

31

capital of the province. Traianus and Marcus Aurelius had prepared war expeditions there, and in

the third century the city was still relevant as a strategic base for the emperors, but it was also the

birthplace of several emperors and the city in which several emperors were proclaimed by their

soldiers.58

Sirmium also remained important after the third century.59

Meanwhile, the dominant role of the city of Rome was gradually disappearing, and a general

shift in location of power from the center (Rome) to the periphery (the cities in border regions

and along lines of march) can be detected. This affected the relation between the emperor and

institutions bound to Rome, such as the senate and the praetorian cohorts.

1.2. Consequences for the position of the emperor

Imperial tasks increasingly performed by others

All these events and developments modified not only the relation of the emperor with the

political elite, but also the demands of the emperor‟s office. An increasing tendency to transfer

imperial tasks to representatives emerges in the course of the third century. Obviously, Roman

emperors had always delegated many duties to others, who mediated imperial power by carrying

out civil-administrative, legal, financial, or military responsibilities in specific geographical

areas. The administration of the Empire at the central level was not yet formalized and could

therefore be tailored to the needs of any ruling emperor.60

Yet the system of administration that

Augustus had created was never changed drastically before 284: adjustments consisted mainly of

(gradual) changes in the range of officials‟ duties or the creation of new offices if circumstances

so demanded. In a recent study on Roman imperial administration, Eich has argued in favor of

the development over the course of the third century of what he calls a „personal bureaucracy‟.

By this he means a system tied to and dependent on the individual person of the emperors and not

on traditional aristocracies, which could extract enough money, goods and services from the

58

Several emperors established their winter headquarters in Sirmium, like (probably) Caracalla in 213/214,

Maximinus Thrax in 237/238 and perhaps Probus in 276/277 (Cod. Iust. 8, 55, 2) and possibly in 278/9. Probus was

killed near Sirmium when he was en route to the East to fight the Persians. His successor Carus was proclaimed

emperor there, just as Aurelianus had been, after his predecessor Claudius had died in there. Gallienus probably set

up his headquarters in Sirmium in 254/6 or 260, since he received an embassy there (according to an inscription

found in Larisa in Thessalia, see Robert-Robert (1951), 167 no. 124; see Halfmann (1986), 223-242. 59

There are archaeological remains of an imperial palace, it possessed an imperial arms factory, was a fleet station

(Notitia Dignitatum (occ.) 9, 18; 32, 50) and the site of an imperial mint. Besides, large numbers of laws were issued

there from Diocletian‟s reign onward. See OCD and DNP s.v. Sirmium. See Johne (2008), 629-631, on the new

imperial residences in the late Empire, and Haensch (1997) for a detailed discussion of provincial capitals. 60

Cf. Peachin (1996), 88: „…any emperor, at any moment, had in principle the power to change the law as he saw

fit. Conservatism in this respect may have been the norm; but nothing bound Caesar absolutely.‟

32

provinces of the Empire to pay for the military forces.61

Based on the premise that in the third

century, especially in the second half, the Roman government needed more money, along with

other resources and a more extensive defensive structure to withstand outside attacks, Eich argues

that the emperors had to raise more funds and so had to tighten fiscal management in the

provinces, which led to a more developed personal bureaucracy.62

It is true that Eich‟s

assumption that the circumstances demanded a more coordinated bureaucracy with more and

more equestrian civil servants, many of whom were juridically trained bureaucrats, cannot be

supported with sound evidence. Nonetheless, this tendency toward a more bureaucratic

administrative system would parallel emperors‟ increasing focus on military matters, which left

civil-administrative, financial, and legal matters to others.63

Other innovations from the third century indicate that the emperor was increasingly

delegating tasks to others. The appointments of private individuals to hear cases and dispense

justice in place of the emperors has been examined by Peachin. He credits the establishment of an

imperial office of substitute imperial judge (iudex vice Caesaris, iudex vice sacra) to Septimius

Severus, during whose reign such judges are first attested, and he further demonstrates that such

appointments are attested occasionally throughout the third century.64

In his extensive discussion

of the emperor‟s judicial role, Peachin convincingly argues that by the end of the second century

AD emperors were overloaded with legal business: for administering justice had become so

complicated that many judges and litigants seized the opportunity to appeal to the emperor, if a

judge‟s unfairness (iniquitas) and/or inexperience (imperitia) had become apparent.65

Special

senatorial deputies constituted a functional response to the looming structural problem of legal

insecurity which encouraged both litigants and judges to approach the emperor for

incontrovertible resolutions. Peachin thus argues that the Severan emperors did not invent the

iudices vice Caesaris merely as a means to ward off work, but to execute governmental services

more efficiently. Until the 240s, Rome hosted these iudices vice Caesaris the most frequently, but

61

Eich (2005). 62

A more developed bureaucracy, as administrators‟ power could extend into more spheres and as the center

deployed additional administrators. Cf. Potter (2004), 261-262. 63

De Blois (2007b), 516-517, accepts Eich‟s main hypotheses, but criticizes Eich‟s decision to disconnect this

process of bureaucratization from a kind of militarization, and argues that Eich overemphasizes emperors‟

reorganizations of the apparatus between 260 and 284. 64

Peachin (1996). Burton (1998) points out that Peachin‟s argument for Severan creation of senatorial officials

acting vice Caesaris remains an argumentum ex silentio. 65

Digesta 49, 1, 1 (Ulpianus). Cf. Digesta 1, 4, 1, in which Ulpianus proclaims that whatever the emperor wanted

had the force of law. On the judicial role of the emperor, see Peachin (1996), 10-91.

33

Philippus Arabs seems to have taken the significant step in allocating such judges to the

provinces. According to Peachin, the duties of these iudices in provincial settings were not

merely judicial.66

Furthermore, Peachin detected an increase in the practice of appointing

substitute provincial governors during the Severan period, as will be discussed in Chapter 3.

Moreover, the first appearance of deputies acting in place of praetorian prefects and city prefects

in Rome can also be dated in the Severan era. The practice of appointing such proxy judges

culminated in the creation of a permanent body of officials authorized to act judicially vice

Caesaris under the emperor Constantine.67

Similarly, expansion of the praetorian prefect‟s

spheres of authority in the course of the third century meant that this official increasingly acted

vice Caesaris: in both in the military and non-military domains, the praetorian prefects gradually

assumed ever more tasks that were formerly assigned to emperors, as will also be argued in

Chapter 3.

In a certain sense, the temporary cessions of territory – as with the Gallic and Palmyrene

empires – might be seen as comparable, since they entailed a similar sharing of imperial

responsibilities. Surely, the circumstances were different: although the central government did

not cede territory as a matter of active policy, the assumption by others of certain tasks and the

responsibility over some areas relieved the emperors and enabled them to focus on nearer and

more urgent matters. Again, it should be stressed that the Roman emperors did not give those

areas up of their own free will, and the secession particularly of Gallia and Palmyra announced

the collapse of individual emperorship, at least temporarily. That the Empire, with all its

problems, had grown to such proportions that it was no longer possible for one man to rule it, was

recognized as early as the second half of the second century AD, when Marcus Aurelius and

Lucius Verus became co-rulers in the 160s, the former focusing on the West, the latter on the

East. Similar attempts at dividing the Empire into an Eastern and a Western part were made in the

third century, as Valerianus tried to overcome the accumulation of problems by making Gallienus

as co-ruler. While Valerianus was dealing with situations of crises in the East, Gallienus took

care of the problems in the Western border areas. About ten years before their reign, Philippus

Arabs recognized the problem as well, and tried to solve it by giving his brother Priscus supreme

66

Peachin (1996), 167-187, in which he discusses some provincial iudices appointed from Philippus‟ reign onwards,

who may have had civil-administrative or financial duties besides their legal tasks, although he admits (171-172) that

this idea remains speculative. 67

On the analogous appearance and increase of substitute governors, praetorian prefects and urban prefects, see

Peachin (1996), 154-187, and appendix 4, 229-238; on Constantine‟s reform, see Peachin (1996), 188-199.

34

authority in the East as corrector Orientis. Yet, as stressed before, Philippus‟ solution was of

different nature, as Priscus was not elevated to the rank of Augustus or even Caesar, and thus did

not formally share imperial power. In 282, Carus also considered it necessary to secure imperial

presence in both the East and the West. He left his son Carinus behind in the Western part of the

Empire, and brought along his son Numerianus to the East to fight against the Persians. The

official division of the Empire into Eastern and Western parts under Diocletian was thus not a

completely unexpected nor unprecedented step.

Changing relations between emperors and the military

The events and developments defined above influenced relations between emperors and their

subjects. Most significant for the purpose of this study is the transformation of the interrelations

between emperors and the various groups involved in central imperial administration. Obviously,

the increasing military threats affected relations between emperors and the military: it made the

emperor more dependent on his troops than ever before. When emperors resided in Rome, in

times of relative peace, they were most accessible to those army divisions that were stationed

there. That is why in the second and early third century AD, the cohortes urbanae, and especially

the cohortes praetoriae, were so often involved in political affairs.68

These cohorts held both

access to the imperial family and the power to elect emperors. But because emperors visited

Rome less frequently in the third century, they were not only surrounded by those divisions of the

praetorian guard and of legio II Parthica, which accompanied them, but also by troops in the

border regions and the mobile detachments that were increasingly mobilized in the third century.

Consequently, high-ranking military officers commanding those troops in the periphery played an

ever increasing role in the imperial entourage, while correspondingly the influence of the

praetorian cohorts decreased, especially from the 240s onwards.69

Again, a shift of power from

center to periphery can be detected. This development coincided with a changing composition of

the corps of high-ranking military officers: senators‟ role as military commanders declined,

whereas professional military men who had worked their way up to equestrian ranks were rising,

as will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

68

See Busch (2007) on the troops stationed directly in and around Rome. 69

The latter‟s dominant role in political matters, and even in imperial proclamations, was assumed by the troops in

the periphery.

35

When from the 260s onward high-ranking military officers of the border troops and

mobile detachments kept being proclaimed emperor, the distinction between emperors and their

corps of generals became less sharp. The case studies in Chapter 4 will further demonstrate how

this affected relations between the emperors and their high-ranking officers.

Changing relations between emperors and the senate

Evidently, relations between emperors and senators were influenced by third-century

developments as well. The rise of the new military aristocracy in the periphery, in which

equestrians rather than senators played a dominant role, combined with the emperors‟ increasing

dependency on the military, and the fact that emperors were eventually more closely allied to the

military aristocracy than to the traditional senatorial aristocracy, changed the emperors‟ relations

with senators at several levels.

When in the course of the third century it became clear that the senate was no longer the

obvious institution for supplying new emperors, this situation initially sparked resistance in 238.

By then, the top of the senate consisted of at least two sections: the traditional senatorial

aristocracy – mostly patrician gentes – and a group of homines novi who were not born senators,

but who had worked their way up to top senatorial positions. By the end of the reign of Gallienus,

the majority of newly chosen emperors were not only no longer of senatorial status, but they had

also risen through military commands – from which senators were by then excluded –, they had

reached the imperial throne through support of their troops and were dependent on them to

maintain their position.70

These emperors were more concerned about preserving the support and

loyalty of their armies in the provinces and border regions than they were to secure additional

senatorial support. So they became less inclined to set off for Rome to make sure their reign was

acknowledged by the senate in the capital.

Not only did the absence of the emperors from Rome hinder the communication with the

senate: the changed background of the emperors in the second half of the third century also made

it increasingly difficult for emperors to communicate with senators on the same level, as

emperors were no longer rhetorically skilled noblemen, but militarily trained professionals. Two

70

On the exclusion of senators from military commands under Gallienus, see Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus

33, 33-34; 37, 5-6. Some inscriptions, however, problematize the statements in Victor. On this matter, see, for

instance, Pflaum (1976); Cosme (2007). On the „edict‟ of Gallienus and the scholarly debate on this matter, see also

Chapter 3, section 3.1.

36

additional factors diminished the senate‟s significance to the emperorship‟s stability: first,

emperors no longer needed senatorial acknowledgement to legitimate their imperial power – so

that under Carus at the latest the emperor could act without senatorial recognition –, and second,

regional usurpers rose who did not aim for legitimacy within the entire Empire but only parts of

it.71

The role of senators in central administration gradually changed as well, as from the reign

of Septimius Severus onwards emperors tended to replace senators with equestrian men in several

provinces, especially those which demanded extensive military responsibilities, as will be

discussed in Chapter 3. This change has often been described in detail, but scholars often

overlook or at least underrate how the traditional senatorial aristocracy was able to maintain and

perhaps even extend its prestigious position within areas which were not struck by long-term

crises such as Italy, Africa and Asia, as will be demonstrated in Chapter 2.

1.3. Conclusion

As this chapter has sought to indicate, the development of emperorship in the third century is a

complicated process in which it is problematic to distinguish causality from correlation. Clearly,

the events and developments of the third century served to undermine the stability of the

emperor‟s position. Of course, there had always been civil wars, military disasters, rebellions

within the provinces, invasions from beyond the frontiers, famines and plagues, ever since the

early history of Rome. As has long been recognized, however, in the third century the Romans

faced many of these problems simultaneously, some of them even on a larger scale than before,

and they proved more difficult to deal with than in previous centuries.

Viewed from the perspective of Dahl‟s dimensions of power, which have been discussed

in the Introduction, it is clear that there was a general decrease in both the scope and domain of

the power which Roman emperors could exercise. That subjects who turned to the emperor for

help were referred back to regional authorities was not typical for the third century. However,

combined with delegation to and assumption by others of other tasks which had formerly been

reserved for emperors, reassignment to local judicial authorities may indicate a decreasing

centrality of the emperor as the figure to whom Romans could turn in their times of need. Even if

some of these measures aimed originally to facilitate more efficient government and

administration, intention does not change consequences: the scope of power exercised by

71

Johne (2008), 624-626.

37

emperors grew narrower. A low point was reached with the secession of the Gallic empire and

Palmyra, when emperors were forced to give up parts of the Empire, thus reducing the domain in

which they exercised power. Moreover, the amount of power exercised by the emperors

increasingly shrank, as the functional visibility and utility of the emperor, and thus of imperial

authority as a whole, decreased. As had been the case from the early Empire onward, military

preponderance expressed through control over substantial army divisions and military successes

remained emperors most essential power base. With the failure of dynastic stability after the

death of Severus Alexander, furthermore, an important additional base for legitimating their

power – which had been relevant from Augustus onwards – was lost for the emperors.

Furthermore, the status profile of emperors changed in the period under discussion:

through the end of the second century AD, emperors had had to be educated senators – either

born senators belonging to the traditional aristocracy, or senatorial newcomers – with a network

of friends and clients in Rome and preferably some military experience. But at the end of the

third century AD, most emperors were military men, born in the periphery of the Empire, who

had worked their way up to equestrian ranks and were not familiar with senatorial modes of

communicating. Status criteria such as birth, education, experience, and lifestyle had therefore

changed immensely. The emperor‟s increasing absence from Rome further complicated

communication with the senate. This development led to emperor Maximinus Thrax‟s clash with

members of the senate in 238. That senatorial consent was no priority for newly acclaimed

emperors in the late third century epitomizes the changing relation between emperors and the

senate.

In the third century, emperors surrounded themselves ever more with troops from the

periphery, and eventually, from the 260s onward, high-ranking military officers were continually

proclaimed emperors. This development minimized the distinction between emperors and

generals, which further complicated emperors‟ capacity to legitimate power – at least in

senatorial eyes. In addition, communication with emperors was made ever more difficult for

senators, not only because they were most accessible to military men, but also because it may not

always have been easy to trace rulers who were continuously on the warpath. Meanwhile, the

seriousness of many of the problems the Roman Empire faced increasingly demanded immediate

interference. Consequently, other men with power were sought out by Romans in need and

mobilized to solve problems which would previously have been brought before the emperor.

38

Given the military character of the majority of the problems in the third century, most of the

people addressed at the local level were military leaders, who apparently became ever more

aware of their growing power and ever more fearsome rivals for the emperors.

In the end, the shift of priority from center to periphery, which can be detected at several

levels, seriously disturbed power balances and obviously affected the position of the emperor in

the course of the third century. The considerable and growing number of usurpers and the

secession of certain areas in the second half of the third century showed clearly that imperial

authority was ever more challenged. Moreover, emperors‟ accessibility diminished rapidly,

particularly after about 235. Due to these developments and consequences, the changes

Diocletian made from 284 onward were not only understandable, but quite natural and perhaps

even unavoidable.

39

CHAPTER 2

THE IMPACT OF CRISES

ON THE POSITION OF THE SENATORIAL ELITE

The crises of the third century altered the position of the senatorial order. This development has

been discussed by many scholars, some of whom have even argued that senators had to deal with

a crisis within the social system and entirely lost their position as leading elite to the ordo

equester.1 More recently, scholars have taken a less extreme position, but they have still been

inclined to focus on the changes in the situation of the ordo senatorius in the third century, and to

ignore, or at least deemphasize, the continuities.2 However, the fact that certain offices held by

senators at the end of the second century AD, remained in their hands after the reforms of

Diocletian, shows some continuity. Even though if anything it was the equestrian order that

amassed positions of power at the expense of the senatorial order over the course of the third

century (see Chapter 3 below), it was also the equestrian order that eventually disappeared in the

late Roman Empire.3 Thus, before further inquiry into changes in the administration and social

hierarchies, it seems constructive to observe and map out the continuity which (at least part of)

the senatorial order ensured during the chaos and transformations of the third century.

The starting point in seeking continuity is to determine a number of high positions which

remained reserved principally for senators both at the end of the second century and after

Diocletian‟s reforms, which will generate a list of the men who are known to have held these

offices in the period under discussion. A subsequent prosopographical examination of these

1 E.g. Alföldy (1988), 193: „The history of the imperial Roman elite during the crisis of the third century seemed to

be leading to a conclusion whereby the senatorial order totally lost its leading position to the equestrian order.‟ Cf.

id. (1988), 121-122; Stein (1963), 445; Rémondon (1970), 100-101; on the changing role of the senate after AD 180,

see also Talbert (1984), 490-491. 2 For more recent views on the ordo senatorius in the third century, see, for instance, Potter (2004) passim; Lo

Cascio (2005), 136. In generic overviews, however, the traditional view still prevails. See, for instance, Sommer

(2004), 24: „Der Senatorenstand hatte endgültig als wichtigste der drei tragenden Säulen des Prinzipats ausgespielt

und wurde immer mehr an den Rand gedrängt.‟ 3 On this, see Alföldy (1988), 193-194. The equestrian order was not formally abolished, but highly placed equites

were enrolled into the senatorial order and the lower equestrian positions went to public officials and officers of

lower rank.

40

office holders will allow us to distinguish a nucleus within the senatorial elite; this nucleus

proved able to maintain or even develop its position within the third century.

2.1. Establishing the senatorial elite in the third century

As has been noted in the Introduction, the senatorial order (ordo senatorius) was a heterogeneous

group which consisted of several strata (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Schematic overview of strata within the senatorial order

A sharp distinction held between mere members of the order and full active members of the

senate, who held senatorial office(s) in Rome and elsewhere in the emperor‟s service. Entry into

the senate during the Principate was normally restricted to twenty men who were annually elected

as quaestors. In addition, men could be taken into the senate from the equestrian order through

co-option (adlectio) by emperors. Emperors (Vespasianus, Marcus Aurelius and Septimius

Severus) used this occasionally to replenish the senate.4 Only a minority of senate members

succeeded in attaining a consulship. These men of consular rank constituted what is called „the

senatorial elite‟ in this study. These senators had gone through a considerable part of the

senatorial cursus honorum and their backgrounds and careers are (relatively) well-documented.

4 Cf. Hopkins and Burton in Hopkins (1983), 146, who stress that this „was not a major method of normal

recruitment‟. Such homines novi thus immediately entered the senate and, in case of adlectio inter consulares, they

instantly penetrated the senatorial elite. A well-known example of an eques who entered the senate through adlectio

and then had a brilliant senatorial career is the emperor Pertinax (see Thomasson (1996), 73, no. 94, for a discussion

of his career). From circa AD 250, such Pertinaces can no longer be detected in the available evidence.

Ordo senatorius Everyone belonging to the senatorial order

Senate Active members of the senate in Rome

Senatorial elite All members of the senate of consular rank

Senatorial nucleus Inner circle of the senatorial elite

41

High consular offices which continued to exist after the reforms of Diocletian were the (ordinary)

consulate, the city prefecture of Rome, and the governorships of the provinces of Africa

Proconsularis and Asia. It was in these posts that the power and status of the third-century

senatorial elite manifested itself most clearly. Therefore these offices are a suitable focus for an

analysis of continuity within the senatorial elite‟s position. The holders of these four offices are

documented relatively well and are discussed in detail in several scholarly works.5 A list of

holders of these offices can be found in Appendix 2.6

Several nomina (gentilicia) recur on the list regularly. A closer examination shows that in

quite a few cases it is plausible that men with similar names belonged to the same gens, or at least

claimed dynastic connections with an aristocratic family. Admittedly, to trace actual kinship at

the evidence of nomenclature is to thread on thin ice.7 Since late antique Romans seem at times to

have fabricated connections with illustrious senatorial ancestors to impress contemporaries, we

must stay aware that third-century Romans may have adopted this strategy as well. After all,

„membership of a multi-generational family was an important component of Roman aristocratic

identity‟.8 Ammianus Marcellinus even made fun of those senators who gave themselves famous

names.9 Epigraphic evidence in which actual kinship is confirmed is rare, let alone cases in which

5 See, for instance, Degrassi (1952) for consular fasti; Barbieri (1952) on senators between AD 193 and 285; lists of

consuls, city prefects, proconsules Africae and Asiae in PLRE I, 1041-1075; Thomasson (1972-1990), 205-242, on

the governors of Asia; Christol (1986), 97-136, on consuls and city prefects from 250 onward; Leunissen (1989) with

lists of consuls, governors of Africa and Asia and city prefects between AD 180 and 235; Thomasson (1996) on

governors of Africa, and the fasti in Johne-Gerhardt-Hartmann (2008), vol. 2, 1063-1189. 6 Only ordinary consulates (consulatus ordinarii) are included in this list, since their number is fixed at two per year,

and the names of all the consules ordinarii are known to us including the dates of their consulates. Suffect

consulships and their dates can usually only be deduced from the fact that a senator held a consular position, and

there is no way to establish the number of consules suffecti between AD 193 and 284. Cf. Mommsen (1887), vol. 2,

84, on suffect consuls: „The number of [suffect] pairs and the period for which they held office were extraordinarily

unequal, and the latter hardly ever seems to have been regularized […].‟ („Die Zahl der Paare und die Fristen sind

ausserordentlich ungleich und eine formelle Regulierung der letzteren scheint kaum je eingetreten zu sein […]‟).

That is why consules suffecti are not included in the list. They are, however, taken into account in the analysis of

senatorial elite families in the next section. 7 Salomies (1992) has shown once again that a firm set of rules for Roman polynomy - which item is adoptive, which

represents the father‟s family, which the mother‟s, etc. - cannot be established. 8 Hillner (2003), 130. According to Hillner (130ff.), a senator could stress his genealogy simply by inventing

memories of alleged ancestors‟ ownership of his house. While senatorial residences were conceived as symbols of

lineage, ancestors‟ genealogies were often fictitious. This practice demonstrates how powerful claims of illustrious

ancestry was in Late Antiquity. Septimius Severus‟ retrospective adoption into the Antonine dynasty (Dio 77, 9, 4;

cf. HA, Vita Sev. 10, 6; Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 20, 30; BMCRE V, 136, †) is a well-known third-

century example of the strategy of inventing family relations. On this, see Birley (1988), 1; 117; 122, and Hekster

(2002), 189-191, with further references. 9 Ammianus Marcellinus 28, 4, 7: Praenominum claritudine conspicui quidam (ut putant) in immensum semet

extollunt, cum Reburri et Flavonii et Pagonii Gereonesque appellentur, ac Dalii cum Tarraciis et Ferasiis, aliisque

ita decens sonantibus originum insignibus multis. („Some men, distinguished (as they think) by famous fore-names,

42

the nature of the relationship is named.10

Only in a very small number of cases can the epigraphic

material be complemented by evidence from literary or legal sources. Therefore nomenclature

often is our only indication for potential kinship between senators. Here, however, the question as

to whether there was actual consanguinity between senators is of minor importance. Even if the

relationship was invented, or based on adoption, it reflected the significance of belonging to a

certain aristocratic gens. Apparently, belonging to or claiming to belong to a certain gens could

increase one‟s chances to obtain top positions within the senatorial cursus honorum, namely to

become consul ordinarius, praefectus urbi, proconsul Africae or proconsul Asiae.

In order to sort out those gentes which certainly belonged to the senatorial elite during a

considerable part of the third century, two criteria applied: (a) at least three members holding one

or more of the selected consular positions should be known to us, and (b) these members‟ careers

should stretch over a total of at least two decades. The following eighteen gentes emerge as

traceable: (1) the Acilii (Glabriones et Aviolae), (2) the Anicii, (3) the Bruttii, (4) the Caesonii,

(5) the Catii, (6) the Claudii Pompeiani, (7) the Claudii Severi, (8) the Egnatii, (9) the Fulvii

Aemiliani, (10) the Hedii Lolliani, (11) the Marii, (12) the Nummii, (13) the Pollieni, (14) the

Pomponii, (15) the Postumii, (16) the Valerii, (17) the Vettii, and (18) the Virii.11

Within the senatorial elite these families represent the percentages listed in table 1. These

indicate that members of these eighteen gentes held a substantial part of the examined offices

between AD 193 and 284. Further analysis shows that these positions were occupied by members

of these families throughout the third century. That means that one can argue that, at least during

the third century, these families were able to create and/or maintain their position within the

pride themselves beyond measure in being called Reburri, Flavonii, Pagonii, Gereones, and Dalii, along with Tarracii

and Pherrasii and many other equally fine-sounding indications of eminent ancestry.‟) 10

Hillner (2003), 132, puts it: „Epigraphic evidence is generally limited to a number of inscriptions found in the

same area recording different members of the same gens.‟ Although Hillner focuses on Late Antiquity in her article,

these words also apply to the third-century evidence. 11

Inevitably, applying these criteria excludes certain gentes which may have belonged to the third-century senatorial

elite. For instance, the Ragonii: although more than three members of this gens are known to us, only two of them

held a consulship between AD 193 and 284 (L. Ragonius Urinatus Tuscenius, suffectus ca. 210 and [L.] Ragonius

Venustus, consul ordinarius 240). L. Ragonius Urinatius Larcius Quintianus was suffectus before 193, under

Commodus, and L. Ragonius Quintianus was consul ordinarius in 289 (see Dietz (1980), 372, stemma 9). The same

goes for the Aufidii from Pisaurum: Aufidius Fronto, consul ordinarius 199, and Aufidius Victorinus, consul

ordinarius 200, were related, but it is unclear whether C. Aufidius Marcellus, proconsul Asiae 220/221; consul II

ordinarius 226, also belonged to this gens. Moreover, I am aware that not only families of importance during the

second century and the beginning of the third, but also gentes which became influential only at the end of the period

under discussion have gone neglected. However, it must be kept in mind that the intention of this study is not to paint

a complete picture of the entire third-century senatorial elite, but merely to point out continuity within this senatorial

elite.

43

senatorial elite.12

The following analysis will throw more light on the position of these families in

the course of the third century.

Table 1: representativeness of the selected families

Office Total number of

appointments known to us

(AD 193-284)

Number of office holders belonging

to selected families

Percentage

Ordinary consuls 13113

45-5114

34-39 %

City prefects 44 11-1215

25-27 %

Proconsuls Afr/Asia 70 12-1416

17-20 %

12

The position of these families in the first and second centuries AD is looked at in some more detail in the

Prosopography below. 13

The total number of ordinary consuls between AD 193 and 284 was 184; in this table the 53 consulates (29%)

filled by emperors and their prospective heirs are excluded. If they were included, the percentage of ordinary consuls

would be lower (24-28%), but would nonetheless remain relatively high. 14

The number of consules ordinarii per family: 3 Acillii; 3 Bruttii; 2 Catii; 4 Claudii Pompeiani; 2 Claudii Severi; 1

Egnatius; 3 Fulvii; 2 Hedii; 3 Marii; 4 Nummii; 1 Pollienus; 2 Pomponii; 1 Postumius; 6 Valerii; 4 Vettii; and 4

Virii. Perhaps some others might be added, but their connections to these eighteen senatorial elite families are less

certain: M. Laelius (Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus, consul ordinarius 227, may have been distantly related to the

Fulvii. Bassus, consul ordinarius 259, may have been identical with Pomponius Bassus […]stus, but this cannot be

determined with certainty. The other consul ordinarius of 259, Aemilianus, cannot be identified with certainty either.

It has been suggested that he was either identical with M. Laelius (Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus, or with Fulvius

Aemilianus, consul ordinarius 244, or Fulvius Aemilianus, consul ordinarius 249. On this, see Christol (1986), 100,

note 19. The same goes for Aemilianus, consul ordinarius 276. Furthermore it is uncertain whether Nummius

Faus(t)ianus, consul ordinarius 262, was a member of the gens Nummia, and it has been suggested that Paulinus,

consul ordinarius 277, was related to the Anicii. 15

City prefects per family: 1 Caesonius; 1(?) Claudius Severus; 1 Egnatius; 1 Marius; 1 Nummius appointed twice; 1

Pomponius; 2 Postumii; 1 Valerius; 2 Virii. On the doubtful cases: one member of the Claudii Severi, if the Severus

mentioned in Cod. Iust. 4, 56, 2, was indeed identical with (Cn. Claudius?) Severus. On this, see Leunissen (1989),

176, note 211; one of the Fulvii Aemiliani may be added, if Groag‟s suggestion that Fulvius Gavius N[umisius…]

Aemilianus was city prefect in 249 was indeed right. See Dietz (1980), 165, with further references. For the moment,

he has not been included in the count. 16

Proconsuls of Africa and/or Asia per family (men serving as agens vice proconsulis are not included in this count):

2 Anicii; 3 Caesonii; 1 Egnatius (three terms); 2 Hedii; 3 Marii; 1(?) Nummius; 1(?) Pollienus; 1 Valerius. On the

doubtful cases: one of the Nummii, if the identification of Albinus with Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus

on AE 1933, 258 is correct. See Leunissen (1989), 226, note 72 for further references; one Pollienus, if Pollienus

Auspex maior indeed held his proconsulship between AD 193 and 200 (and not before 193). Several men may

perhaps be added, but for the moment they are not included in the count. Those men are: an Acilius Glabrio was

governor of Africa, but the date cannot be determined with certainty. It may have been M(‟?). Acilius Glabrio in the

third century, after 256, but it may also have been another member of the gens in the second century. On this matter,

see Thomasson (1996), 94, no. 132; furthermore, another Pollienus may be added, if the suggestion in Eck (1983),

855, that Pollenius Armenius Peregrinus was proconsul Asiae is correct; and one Pomponius, if Pomponius Bassus

[…]stus was indeed proconsul Africae or Asiae, as suggested by PLRE I, Bassus 17. For the moment, he has not

been included in the count.

44

2.2. Analyzing the selected families

An indepth examination of these eighteen senatorial families will yield a clearer perception of the

position of the members of these families, their careers, their backgrounds and origins, their

social status, the relationships within the gentes and interrelations with other senatorial families.

Ideally, we could present a complete picture of these families and reconstruct their

careers. The evidence, however, is too fragmentary. What we have is a number of inscriptions

and, in some cases, literary or judicial sources mentioning these men, but only in very few cases

does the evidence inform us of all the positions held by a person or of precise family connections.

Often, the only indication for an individual‟s or family‟s geographical origin is the provenance of

relevant inscriptions. Yet, fortunately there is one exception, one family of which a more or less

complete picture can be painted: the gens Caesonia. The careers of three generations of this

family‟s men can be reconstructed by means of several career inscriptions. Their careers coincide

with Roman imperial history stretching from the reign of Marcus Aurelius until the reign of

Diocletian. These careers, and the family‟s social position between AD 193 and 284, will serve as

an illustrative example of continuity and will demonstrate the capacity of one family to even

strengthen its position in the third century. Because the evidence is uniquely informative, the

Caesonii may not be representative for all senatorial elite families. Yet they will form the starting

point of my analysis, because their record, together with the more fragmentary information on the

other families, can illustrate the position of the selected senatorial elite families throughout the

third century and their role within imperial administration.

The Caesonii – the course of the third century reflected in three careers

Gaius Caesonius Macer Rufinianus, born around AD 155/160, was the first member of the gens

Caesonia to hold a consulship.17

It is generally assumed that he had Italic roots.18

Beside the fact

that his father was also called Gaius, nothing is known about his ancestors. Dietz claims that this

Caesonius must have been a homo novus based on the fact that he started his career as a triumvir

capitalis. However, Eck rightly notes that this argument cannot be considered decisive.19

17

PIR² C 210. On this man and his career, see also Eck (1985), 76-77; Christol (1986), 160-162; Leunissen (1989),

388; Thomasson (1996), 86-87 no. 118; Badel-Bérenger (1998), 139-141. Caesonius was a Roman family name

documented in the first century BC. See DNP, vol. 2, 929, s.v. Caesonius 18

Eck (1985), 76, and Leunissen (1989), 357, suggest that he was from Regio I, possibly from Antium. However,

according to Jacques (1986), 168, the existence of several gentilic attestations from Italy was due to normal

investments of an important senatorial family and does not indicate their geographical origin. 19

Dietz (1980), 104f.; Eck (1985), 76.

45

Caesonius Macer Rufinianus married Manilia Lucilla, and it has been suggested that she was the

sister or daughter of (Tiberius) Manilius Fuscus, consul suffectus in 196/7, consul II ordinarius in

225.20

Caesonius‟ career can be outlined from an inscription on an epitaph set up by his son. This

inscription found near Tibur mentions his entire career in inversed order.21

The start of Caesonius‟ senatorial career was not exceptional. Being one of the vigintiviri,

he fulfilled a police-function in Rome as triumvir capitalis. This appointment cannot be dated

precisely, but was probably at the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, just before Caesonius took

his position as military tribunus, one of the members of staff of legio I Adiutrix. For this position

Caesonius left Italy to go to Brigetio in Pannonia Superior, probably during Marcus‟ second

expedition in Germania.22

Caesonius was about twenty years old at that time. It was while he held

this function that the emperor granted his unit military honors (dona militaria), which is proudly

mentioned in the inscription as well. The next step in his cursus honorum was a position as

quaestor in Narbonensis after which he returned to Rome to become tribunus plebis, probably

already under Commodus. About 185, he was sent to Hispania Baetica as legatus to assist the

governor, and about two years later he became praetor and entered the next stage of his career.

Before reaching the consulship, his praetorian career included six or seven positions and

can, therefore, be considered rather long. He assisted the governor of Asia as legatus and

subsequently held the first of several positions as Italic curator in his career. As curator rei

publicae he probably executed a financial task in Asculum (Picenum), followed by another

military function as legatus of legio VII Claudia at Viminacium in Moesia Superior. Next, he

became proconsul of Achaia. Governing Greece was reserved for junior praetorian senators.

After his proconsulship Caesonius returned to Italy to become curator rei publicae of Tarracina,

a city in Latium, at the end of the reign of Commodus or not long after this emperor‟s death in

192.23

He went to Spain for his next position as legatus Augusti pro praetore, governing

Lusitania. It is not certain whether he had already been appointed when Septimius Severus was

proclaimed emperor, or whether the new emperor appointed him, but he probably retained his

20

L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, the son of Caesonius and Manilia Lucilla, was one of the Fratres

Arvales, which was an inherited priestly office. That is why Settipani suggests that Lucilla may have been connected

to Ti. Manilius Fuscus (PIR² M 137), who was Frater Arvalis in 190. See Settipani (2000), 349, note 4. 21

CIL 14.3900 = ILS 1182 = Inscr. It. IV 1, 102 (Latium, Tibur). For an overview of his career and the careers of the

other Caesonii, see the prosopography at the end of this chapter. 22

Alföldy (1969), 146-147; Syme (1971), 159, contra Pflaum (1978), 84-85, who suggested that this office was held

in 173. 23

Leunissen (1989), 388, suggests circa 193. For a date at the end of the reign of Commodus, see Eck (1999), 236.

46

position until he served as consul suffectus circa 197/198, when he was about forty years old. The

consulship may have been a reward for taking part in putting down the rebellion of Lucius

Novius Rufus, governor of Hispania Citerior and a supporter of Clodius Albinus, one of Severus‟

rivals.24

This certainly would explain the further course of his career.

Just before or not long after his consulship, Caesonius was appointed to his third term as a

curator rei publicae, this time in Teanum, a city in the northern part of Campania.25

Around 198

he became responsible for the banks and channels of the Tiber as curator alvei Tiberis, a position

which both his son and his grandson would occupy in the future. After this, probably around 200,

Caesonius was appointed to his first consular governorship in Germania Superior. For his next

post of curator aquarum et Miniciae he returned to Italy. Presumably he carried out this position

sometime between 203 and 213, but the exact date and duration are unclear.26

Caesonius‟ next

office crowned his career: he was appointed proconsul to govern the economically important

province of Africa. He may have held this position under Caracalla in 213/214 or 214/215, but a

date under Elagabalus or Severus Alexander has also been suggested.27

Caesonius‟ task as

curator rei publicae of Lavinium or Lanuvium, both of which are in Latium, brought him back to

Italy once more. He held it twice, according to Eck at the end of the reign of Caracalla.28

He was

also sodalis Augustalis, but it is impossible to determine the exact chronological point of this

priestly office within his career.

His career ended in a remarkable way: Caesonius Macer Rufinianus was comes of the

emperor Severus Alexander, most probably during the latter‟s Persian campaign of AD 231-233.

It seems unthinkable that the senator, who must have been over seventy years old during the

Persian expedition, actually accompanied the emperor on this perilous and exhausting Eastern

campaign. Suggestions that the title comes had developed into a title to indicate that someone was

connected to the court, like amicus, might therefore very well be right.29

24

Alföldy (1969), 146; Christol (1986), 161; Leunissen (1989), 155 and 289. 25

Christol (1986), 161, agrees with PIR² C 210 that this position must have been held before the consulship and that

the post of curator alvei Tiberis must have been Caesonius‟ first consular task. Leunissen (1989), 388, suggests that

the curatorship of Teanum was his first consular position. 26

Christol (1986), 161, note 9, follows Pflaum (1978), 85, who suggests 204 or not much later. Here Pflaum rectifies

the date of about 220, previously suggested by him. See Pflaum (1963), 234-237. 27

Thomasson (1996), 86-87, suggests a date under Elagabalus or Severus Alexander and that, in this case, his son

may have served as his father‟s legatus in Africa. He claims that there is not much space for a proconsulship during

the reign of Caracalla. Christol (1986), 162, and Leunissen (1989), 388, suggest a date between 212/213 and 215. 28

Eck (1985), 76, accepts Lavinium; Eck (1999), 234, accepts Lanuvium. 29

Pflaum (1978), 85-86; see also Thomasson (1996), 87.

47

The son of Caesonius Macer Rufinianus and his wife Manilia Lucilla was named Lucius

Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus and was probably born around 195.30

His career is known

to us mainly from an inscription on a statue base also found near Tibur.31

He started his career as one of the vigintiviri with a judicial position as decemvir stlitibus

iudicandis sometime at the beginning of the reign of Caracalla. At that time or not long

afterwards, the family was accepted into the patriciate (electus in familiam patriciam). This can

be seen in the career of Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus: he was appointed quaestor as

imperial candidatus at the end of Caracalla‟s reign and became praetor candidatus after that,

without any intervening offices, which was typical for a patrician career. His appointment as

praetor came probably after the death of Caracalla under Elagabalus, around 220/222.32

Like his father, Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus also served in several positions as

curator, two of which followed immediately after his praetorship. First, he became curator rei

publicae of Suessa, a city in Campania. For his second curatorship both Tusculum in Latium as

Puteoli in Campania near Naples are suggested.33

Either way, both positions were carried out in

Italic cities. A post as legatus and simultaneously as deputy of the governor (vice proconsulis)

brought him to Africa, where he would return later in his career, and consecutively led straight to

his suffect consulship. These positions can be dated around 225/230, during the reign of Severus

Alexander, at about the same time Caesonius‟ father was comes of this emperor.

Shortly after his consulship, the curator alvei Tiberis et cloacarum urbis became his first

consular office. His next job as curator aquarum et Miniciae, the position which his father had

also fulfilled, can be dated during the last years of Severus Alexander‟s reign, between 230 and

235. In 238 he was chosen as one of the vigintiviri ex senatus consulto rei publicae curandae,

who, by senatorial decree, were to set the empire free from the senators‟ scourge, Maximinus

Thrax. His membership in this committee shows the prestige that he held within the senate.

Eventually, the committee of twenty succeeded. All the known members of the vigintiviri of 238

30

Christol (1986), 162, note 15. 31

CIL 14.3902 = ILS 1186 = Inscr. It. IV I, 104 (Tibur, Italy). See also: CIL 6.2104b (Roma); CIL 6.37165 (Roma);

AE 1915, 102 = CIL 6.39443 (Roma). For this Caesonius, see PIR² C 209 and Dietz (1980), 103ff., no. 17; Christol

(1986), 158-172; Leunissen (1989), 377; Thomasson (1996), 90, no. 122; Peachin (1996), 112-114. 32

Peachin (1996), 113, dates the first steps of his career somewhat earlier. He assumes that this Caesonius was

quaestor in circa 212 and praetor in circa 217. In that case, both positions would have been carried out during the

reign of Caracalla. 33

About the problem, see PIR² C 209 and also Thomasson (1996), 90.

48

had successful careers.34

Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus was awarded a proconsulship of

Africa and returned to this province with which he was already familiar. It must have been about

ten to fifteen years after his position as legatus and vice proconsulis, probably not before

240/241, since his participation in meetings of the fratres Arvales in 239 and even in January

240.35

Both the Historia Augusta and Zosimus mention the usurpation of a Sabinianus who was

acclaimed emperor in Carthage in 240 and was struck down at the end of the year by the

governor of Mauretania Caesariensis.36

Caesonius may have been sent there to restore order in

the province, which would mean that the emperor Gordianus III and his advisers put great trust in

him. However, this is merely a conjecture.

That Caesonius concluded his career with a position as praefectus urbi and a judicial task

as deputy of the emperor himself (electus ad cognoscendas vice Caesaris cognitiones), also

implies that he enjoyed imperial trust. Unfortunately, these last two offices cannot be dated more

precisely than with a terminus ante quem of 254. So, although it is likely that they were also held

during the reign of Gordianus III, as is suggested in PIR, they could also have been carried out

under Philippus Arabs, Decius, Trebonianus Gallus, Aemilius Aemilianus or even Valerianus. It

is also unclear whether the two positions were carried out simultaneously or consecutively.37

A

second consulship might have been expected, but Caesonius may have died before he could have

been appointed. At any rate, Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus proved to be one of the more

important senators during the first half of the third century, considered loyal by several emperors.

The next generation of the Caesonii was represented by Lucius Caesonius Ovinius

Manlius Rufinianus Bassus.38

He was the son of the above-mentioned Caesonius and a woman

who probably descended from the gens Ovinia, which was important in the third century as

well.39

His career can be reconstructed from an honorary inscription from Aversa.40

34

See Dietz (1980), 326-340. 35

CIL 6.37165 (Roma); Thomasson (1996), 90, note 137. 36

HA, Vita Gord. 23, 4; Zosimus 1, 17, 1. 37

Peachin (1996), 114, deals with the problem of dating these positions. He locates Caesonius as vice Caesaris in

Rome between 242 and 244, when Gordianus III was conducting his expedition Orientalis, and thinks this position

was prior to the prefecture of the city. He suggests that Caesonius laid down his position as judge when Philippus

returned to Rome and that he was then named praefectus urbi, circa 246. However, Peachin admits that the

epigraphic evidence supplies no precision in this regard. 38

PIR² C 212; PIR² O 186; PLRE I, Bassus 18. See also Christol (1986), 158-176; Thomasson (1996), 93-94, no.

130. 39

According to Settipani (2000), 351, this Caesonius was married to an (Ovinia), who was probably the sister of (L.

Ovinius) Pacatianus, who was in his turn married with Cornelia Optata A[quilia?] Flavia…, the sister of Cn.

Cornelius Paternus, consul ordinarius 233. Settipani suggests that L. Ovinius Rusticus Cornelianus, consul suffectus

49

He must have been born during the reign of Severus Alexander between 225 and 230, and

served in his first position about 240/245 under Gordianus III or Philippus Arabs. Like his

grandfather he started his career as triumvir capitalis. Next, he became sevir turmae deducendae

(equitum Romanorum), commander of one of the six squadrons (turmae) of equites and

responsible for organizing games, which involved great financial responsibility. As a patrician,

the next steps in his career were quaestor candidatus and praetor candidatus.

His praetorian career was short. Two stints as curator rei publicae led him directly to the

consulate. His first curatorship was carried out in Beneventum in the southern part of Italy and

the second one in Lavinium in Latium led him to a city where his grandfather may also have

served as curator. He held a consulship around 260, probably as consul suffectus.41

At that point

his career had survived the many upheavals of imperial power during the 250s.

His consular career started with a position as curator alvei Tiberis et cloacarum sacrae

urbis, following after both his father and his grandfather. He held several positions in Africa, a

province he may have known from accompanying his father during his proconsulship. However,

this may have interfered with the start of his own cursus honorum. This Caesonius was legatus of

Carthage, curator of the colonia Carthaginensium and finally proconsul Africae for three years in

a row. The three African offices are mentioned in succession on his career inscription, but it is

doubtful whether they were actually fulfilled consecutively. It has been suggested by both Eck

and Christol that the positions of legatus and curator belonged to the praetorian part of his

career.42

The functions may have been clustered in the inscription because they were all fulfilled

in the same area. The proconsulship of Africa, dated around 275 under Aurelian and/or Tacitus,

did not mean that this man‟s career ended. On the contrary, the emperor Probus chose him to

chair the iudicium magnum, probably a court of appeal at Rome. After this, he carried out some

in the middle of the third century, and Ovinius Pacatianus, praefectus urbi 276, may have been their children, and

that an Ovinius Iulius Aquilus (?) Nonius Paternus, consul ordinarius 267?, consul II ordinarius 279, praefectus urbi

281, may have been their grandson. However, he admits that there are too many uncertainties about the Ovinii to

construct a stemma. That is why this family has not been included in the list of senatorial elite families discussed

here. 40

AE 1964, 223 (Aversa, Italy). He is also known from three other inscriptions (CIL 10.1687 = ILS 1206 (Puteoli,

Italy); AE 1945, 21 (Roma); AE 1968, 109 (Fundi, Italy), which add little to our knowledge of his career. According

to Christol (1986), 167-176, they refer to the homonymic son of the consul suffectus circa 260. This theory, however,

has not been adopted by many scholars. See Leunissen (1989), 202, note 318, and Thomasson (1996), 93, note 137.

Even if Christol‟s assumption is correct, this would only point to another successful generation of the Caesonii

within the third century, and would support my argument. 41

It has been suggested that he was identical with the Bassus, who was consul ordinarius in 259. See Christol

(1986), 100-101. 42

RE Suppl. 14, 82; Christol (1986), 163-164.

50

other judicial functions under Probus. He was appointed judge (iudex) as deputy of the emperor

himself (vice Caesaris) in cases involving the imperial treasury (fiscus) and private individuals,

and cases between private persons themselves.43

At first, he carried out this office in Rome,

probably between 276 and 281, and later, presumably during the last years of the reign of Probus

(281/282), also in Africa. The title comes Augustorum duorum was probably bestowed upon him

between 283 and 285, when Carus and Carinus or Carinus and Numerianus were joint emperors.

Two more offices are mentioned in the inscriptions: a second consulship and a position as

prefect of the city Rome. The consulship can be dated around 284 and was presumably a suffect

one, which was quite unique. After AD 104, all the consules iterum had been ordinarii.44

However, most of the positions of consules ordinarii from 283 to 285 were held by the emperors

themselves, so there was hardly any space for non-imperial consules ordinarii in those years,

which may explain this uncommon situation. The consulship may have coincided with the

position of praefectus urbi. It is striking that this Caesonius is not mentioned in the list of city

prefects of the Chronographer of 354. Scholars usually explain this by suggesting that Caesonius

was not praefectus of Rome at the first of January, but was appointed in the middle of a year to

replace someone else.45

The exact year in which he performed this function is uncertain, but it

was probably around 285, during or just before the start of the reign of Diocletian. According to

the inscription, Caesonius was also salius Palatinus, pontifex maior and pontifex dei Solis. Only

the last priestly office can be dated, although not precisely, since this office only came into use

under Aurelianus in 274.

Another function is mentioned only fragmentary in another inscription: pr[…]ones tracto

Piceno.46

Unfortunately, this function cannot be defined with certainty. Suggested solutions are

praefectus adversus latrones (against brigands), praefectus annones (sic) (responsible for the

corn crop) and praefectus ad tirones (to select recruits).47

Besides the fact that the function

cannot be determined, it is also problematic that the position within the career cannot be

established, since in this inscription the functions seem not to be in chronological order.

43

It is unclear whether this position was first exercised inter fiscum et privatos and later only (item) inter privatos, or

whether the categories did not change. See Christol (1986), 166. 44

See RE Suppl. 14, 82. 45

See under PIR² O 186. 46

AE 1968, 109 (Fundi, Italy). 47

See RE Suppl. 14, 83, by Eck, who prefers the solution suggested by Barbieri of pr[aefectus ad tir]ones.

51

A Caesonius Bassus was consul ordinarius in 317. He was probably the son or rather the

grandson of Caesonius Ovinius Manlius Rufinianus Bassus. At the end of the third century, the

Caesonii became connected to the Anicii, another third-century senatorial elite gens (see below)

probably through nuptial bonds.48

Observations on the careers and position of the Caesonii in the third century

Within a century the Caesonii seem to have developed from a rather ordinary senatorial, perhaps

originally even equestrian, family into a patrician clan whose members had flourishing careers

under many emperors of the third century. The family does not seem to have suffered from the

numerous changes of imperial power which appeared especially after AD 238. Quite the contrary.

The most impressive appointments within the careers of the Caesonii can be dated after that

critical year.

Many similarities emerge between the careers of the three Caesonii. Caesonius Lucillus

Macer Rufinianus and his son carried out both their quaestorship and their praetorship as

candidati of the emperor. This demonstrates imperial favor as well as their patrician status.

Typical of a patrician career is also the relatively low number of offices between the praetorship

and the consulship within their careers.

The number of positions, mainly curatorships, in which the Caesonii served in Italy is

considerable. The position of curator aquarum, the prefecture of Rome, and possibly also the

curatorship of Lavinium, were held by two of them. The post of curator alvei Tiberis even

appears in all of their careers. In addition to Italy, Africa was a region in which all of them were

active. All three of them reached the high post of proconsul of Africa. In this way the emperors

took a certain risk by enabling the family to build up a social network in Africa. The risk of

usurpation grew when a family had connections in a certain area and could lead to situations

comparable to the seizure of power by the Gordiani in the years 238 to 244. Their knowledge of

the province may have been outweighed precautionary measures against usurpation.

48

On Caesonius Bassus, consul in 317, see PLRE I, Bassus 12. According to Jacques (1986), 168, Bassus‟ consular

colleague Ovinius Gallicanus may have been a relative. The names of M. Iunius Caesonius Nicomachus Anicius

Faustus Paulinus, praetor urbanus 321, and Amnius Manius Caesonius Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus, consul 334,

praefectus urbi 334-335, support the assumption that the Caesonii and Anicii became connected in the fourth

century. See Settipani (2000), 347-348.

52

In any case, emperors‟ confidence in the Caesonii was not misplaced: none of them

abused their power. On the other hand, after 238, military commanders, not senators, presented

the greatest threat to the imperial throne. Military experience, military power and social networks

among military officers became sources of power from 240 onward. Those were exactly the

qualities that the Caesonii lacked. The positions they held mainly gave them experience in the

administrative, financial and legal spheres, but hardly any knowledge of the military, and some

offices involved more honor than actual power.

Two specific events bolstered the position of the Caesonii between Marcus Aurelius and

Diocletian. First, Caesonius Macer Rufinianus‟ support for Septimius Severus against Clodius

Albinus brought the family consular and patrician status and put them on the map as an important

senatorial elite family. Second, Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus‟ involvement among the

vigintiviri in 238 enabled them to maintain their position during a chaotic period and to rise to the

highest possible positions within a senatorial career and some intriguing special tasks in direct

service to the emperors. Throughout the rest of this period of about a hundred years, the Caesonii

seem to have kept low profile, remaining loyal to most emperors, but never so bound to one

emperor in particular that his death would cause danger to them. In this way, they were able to

survive the chaos and transformations of the third century crises. Establishing relations with other

senatorial elite families strengthened the position of the Caesonii even further and enabled them

to remain important after 284 as well.

The senatorial elite families – main observations

As has been stated before, the evidence for the careers of the Caesonii is uniquely extensive for

the third century. Of the remaining families, of whom members were prominent in key functions,

only fragmentary evidence survives. However, the evidence of developments and relations in

similarly elite families largely parallels the Caesonian careers and position. By combining the

results of the complete record of the gens Caesonii with the fragmentary evidence on these other

families, I have been able both to expand my theory of such senatorial elite families‟ continuining

hold on positions which involved status and power and to define a senatorial nucleus within the

third-century senatorial elite. A more detailed prosopographical account appears at the end of this

chapter. Here, the main observations are summarized and illustrated with examples from this

prosopography.

53

The first observation is that the analyzed families were particularly bound to Italy. A

considerable number of these gentes seems, like the Caesonii, to have had Italic roots. In eight

cases (44%), Italic origin seems most likely, while in seven other cases (39%) Italy has been

suggested as a possible homeland (see table 2).

Table 2

Gens Geographic origin

Acilii Probably Italy

Anicii Africa (Uzappa) or Italy (Praeneste)

Brutii Italy (Volcei, Lucania)

Caesonii Italy (Regio I, Antium?)

Catii Dalmatia, Gallia or N-Italy

Claudii Pompeiani Syria (Antiocheia ad Orontem)

Claudii Severi Galatia (Pompeiopolis)

Egnatii Bithynia, Numidia or Italy (Etruria)

Fulvii Aemiliani Italy

Hedii Lolliani Italy (Liguria)

Marii Africa or Italy

Nummii N-Italy (Brixia) or S-Italy (Beneventum)

Pollieni Italy

Pomponii Italy

Postumii Numidia

Valerii Italy (Lavinium, Latium)

Vettii Africa, Gallia Narbonensis or Italy

Virii Asia Minor or N-Italy

Such suggestions are based mostly on funerary inscriptions, epigraphic evidence pointing at

regional landownership, or inscriptions honoring patroni or commemorating a person‟s

benefactions to a city. As stressed before, they are rarely confirmed by other evidence. Obviously

it should be noted here that establishing a senatorial family‟s geographic origin is problematic.49

Provincial newcomers in the senate were expected to invest capital (i.e. acquire landed property)

in Italy, which in some cases causes trouble in determining a family‟s origin.50

Talbert, however,

suggests that this requirement may soon have lapsed, since „the amount of surviving evidence for

ownership of Italian property by provincial senators is puzzlingly small‟.51

He adds that there

must have been many provincial senators who re-moved altogether to Italy and points out the

remark of Paulus who „makes the striking point that a senator removed from the order is restored

49

Cf. Hopkins and Burton in Hopkins (1983), 144, on Hammond (1957): „His precise conclusions depend on the

reliability of the attributions of origin, which are often debatable […].‟ 50

From Plinius, Epistulae 6, 19, we learn that Traianus had ordered candidates for public office to invest a third of

their capital in Italian land. HA, Vita Marc. 11, 8, reports that Marcus Aurelius demanded from senators of non-

Italian origin that they invested one quarter of their capital in Italy. On the financial obligations of senators, see also

Talbert (1984), 54-66. 51

Talbert (1984), 56. Cf. Hopkins and Burton in Hopkins (1983), 189, note 93, who argue that „the reduction in the

required proportion implies that it was difficult to secure compliance.‟

54

to his country of origin only by special request‟.52

Krieckhaus has demonstrated for the first and

second centuries AD that senatorial families, even though they entered a new environment in

Rome, were clearly still very much attached to their old patriae economically, socially and

emotionally.53

Krieckhaus‟ study has confirmed the earlier view of Eck, who has also included

the third century AD in his examination, and argued against underestimating the continuining

strength of ties between senators and their old patriae.54

That the eighteen families in my analysis

were so strongly connected in Italy is therefore all the more significant. Apparently, they were so

well-integrated in Italy and Rome that their attachment to the Italic peninsula equalled or even

exceeded their connection with their patria. Therefore, with the majority of these families it is

difficult to specify Italian or provincial origins. Only in three of the eighteen cases (17%) can

Italic origins be excluded with certainty: the Claudii Pompeiani, the Claudii Severi and the

Postumii. By the third century, however, these gentes must have been fully integrated into Rome

as well, as nuptial bonds had connected these families with Marcus Aurelius and Pertinax.55

Thus, it seems safe to argue that all the analyzed families either had Italic roots or were otherwise

strongly bound to Italy and Rome by the third century. Furthermore, only a very small minority

of the analyzed gentes show obvious signs of eastern origins. This is striking, since from the

second century onward the number of easterners rose steadily within the senate.56

Besides these strong ties with Italy, analysis demonstrates that the majority of the

eighteen families reached patrician status at some point. This status is not always mentioned

explicitly, but in several cases it can be deduced from the fact that a person was an imperial

candidatus or triumvir monetalis.57

Six of the examined gentes (33%) certainly were patrician;

three of them had obtained this status well before 193, and the other three were accepted into the

patriciate in the course of the third century. Another third may have had patrician status. Most of

52

Talbert (1984), 56, referring to Digesta 50, 1, 22, 4. 53

Krieckhaus (2006). 54

Eck (1980), 318. A different view was expressed by Syme in the posthumously edited and published Syme (1999),

4: „A generation or two of service would loosen the links that bound a family to the town or province of its origin.‟

Cf. Krieckhaus (2006), 7. See also id., 15, where Krieckhaus argues that from the Severan era onwards the concepts

patria and origo became exchangeable in the ancient legal sources. 55

Both Claudius Pompeianus and Claudius Severus (consules II ordinarii 173) were married to daughters of Marcus

Aurelius. The Postumii probably descended from Flavius Claudius Sulpicianus, father-in-law of Pertinax. 56

Halfmann (1979) See also Hammond (1957), who argues that in AD 69-79, 17% of known senators whose origins

were known were of provincial origin, chiefly (70%) from the western provinces, and that AD 193-212, 57% of all

known senators came from the provinces; 58% of them were from eastern provinces. Cf. Hopkins and Burton in

Hopkins (1983), 144-145. 57

Christol (1986), 61-62.

55

the families which entered the patriciate between AD 193 and 284 had already been appointed

into (ordinary) consulates, proconsulships and the city prefecture well before they reached

patrician rank.

Table 3

Gens Patrician status

Acilii From 1st century AD

Anicii From ca 230/250

Brutii Under Antoninus Pius (ca 160)

Caesonii Under Caracalla (ca 212/217)

Catii No indications

Claudii Pompeiani Possibly before 228

Claudii Severi No indications

Egnatii No indications

Fulvii Aemiliani Possibly under Marcus Aurelius (ca 169)

Hedii Lolliani Ca 170/184

Marii No indications

Nummii Possibly ca 191/199

Pollieni No indications

Pomponii No indications

Postumii Possibly before 272

Valerii Possibly since the Republican period

Vettii Ca 200 or 220/225

Virii Possibly ca 240/250

For the remaining six families (33%) there are no indications that they were accepted into the

patriciate (see table 3). They were either no longer accepted into the patriciate, or the explicit

mention of patrician status or reference to it in inscriptions no longer necessarily signified

elevated status. There are at least some indications for a certain devaluation of patrician status

among the senatorial elite in the course of the third century here. However, as said, the majority

of the analyzed families seems to have reached patrician status at some point.

This group with strong connections with the Italic peninsula and a relatively high

percentage of patricians thus appears regularly on the list of consuls, proconsuls, and city prefects

between 193 and 284. In the case of the Caesonii we could furthermore notice a number of

similarities within the careers of the members of this gens, for instance that relatively many

positions were carried out in Italy and Africa. Moreover, a gradual reduction of positions

involving military responsibility and a steady increase of positions in the administrative, financial

and legal spheres is traceable within their careers. Unfortunately, many of the careers of the

members of the other analyzed gentes have not come down to us completely. Yet, if we look at

those parts of their careers known to us, some of these Caesonian features emerge.

56

Like the Caesonii, the other analyzed senatorial elite families were frequently appointed to

positions in Rome and Italy. Also like the Caesonii, they continued to hold positions in Africa,

Asia and other regions which were not heavily struck by warfare in the period under discussion,

such as Spain and Achaia. There are some cases in which members of the same gens were

repeatedly delegated to the same geographic area, like the Anicii in Africa and Numidia, the

Hedii Lolliani in Hispania Citerior, and the Marii in Syria.58

Yet there is too little evidence to

determine whether this indicates a pattern in third-century appointment policies or whether these

similarities were merely coincidences. Appointments of these senatorial elites in regions which

suffered from repeated invasions and enduring warfare, such as the provinces of Moesia, Dacia,

Germania and Syria, were largely restricted to the early third century and became very rare from

240 onwards.

Concurrently, the type of positions held by members of these gentes seems gradually to

have changed: the evidence points to an increasing tendency towards selecting these senatorial

elite members for civil-administrative, financial and legal offices, especially in the relatively

peaceful areas mentioned above. These senators are frequently attested as curator, corrector,

iudex (vice sacra), iuridicus, and censitor. Their social pre-eminence, wealth and education made

members of the senatorial elite particularly suitable for these regulatory and adjudicatory posts.59

Yet, as has been noted, after about 240 they are no longer attested as governors of provinces in

which legions were stationed.60

These positions went increasingly to equestrian men with

abundant military experience, as will be discussed in Chapter 3. Some examples from the

analysis illustrate this development: Anicius Faustus was governor of Numidia and Moesia

58

Anicius Faustus was legatus in Numidia in 197-201. His descendant Cocceius Anicius Faustus Flavianus was

curator in Cirta (Numidia) in 251, and then in the 260s Cocceius Anicius Faustus Paulinus was proconsul Africae.

Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus was tribunus militum and later governor and censitor in Hispania Citerior, in the

late second century. His son (Hedius) Lollianus Plautius Avitus was iuridicus in northern Spain and legatus legionis

in Hispania Citerior, probably early third century. Marius Perpetuus was tribunus legionis in Syria and later legatus

legionis in Syria Coele early third century. His brother Marius Maximus became governor of the province of Syria

Coele under Septimius Severus as well. 59

The prime function of curatores (rei publicae) was to investigate and supervise, on a short-term basis, the finances

of individual civic communities; in the provinces they could supplement the powers of provincial governors.

Correctores also fulfilled regulatory and adjudicatory duties, but they possessed imperium and their powers were

more wide-ranging than those of curatores. Iudices were private persons appointed to conduct hearings. In the Late

Empire the use of the term became much wider: any official with jurisdiction or administrative power was so called

(cf. Cod. Iust. 3, 1, 14, 1). Iuridici were officials of praetorian rank who performed judicial functions in civil cases in

Italy: they were appointed by the emperor and assigned to particular districts. A censitor was a tax officer. See OCD,

s.v. corrector; curator; curator rei publicae; iudex; and iuridicus. On the curatores in Rome, see also Bruun (2006). 60

Thus this process seems to have started well before the reigns of Valerianus and Gallienus. Pace Lo Cascio (2005),

160.

57

Superior under Septimius Severus. His son Anicius Faustus Paulinus governed Moesia Inferior

under Severus Alexander. Yet, from the next generation of Anicii no one was appointed as

provincial governor. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Flavianus is only known to have been curator rei

publicae in Cirta (Numidia) in 251. Catius Celer was the last member of the Catii known to us

who held a provincial governorship, in Moesia Superior in 242. The Egnatii, who were governors

of provinces with legions under Septimius Severus (Egnatius Victor in Pannonia Superior), and

still under Severus Alexander (Egnatius Victor Marinianus in Arabia and Moesia Superior, and

perhaps Egnatius Victor Lollianus in Pannonia Inferior) are not attested as governors of militarily

relevant provinces after 235. The same can be said about the Pollieni: Pollienus Auspex minor

governed Hispania Tarraconensis, Moesia Inferior and Britannia probably under Septimius

Severus or Severus Alexander; Iulius Pollienus Auspex was legatus of Numidia between 212 and

222. Pollenius Armenius Peregrinus, a member of the next generation, was proconsul of Lycia et

Pamphylia, a region in which no legion was stationed, circa 243. Even Postumius Varus, who

held a military position as legatus legionis in Britannia shortly before 250, is not attested as

governor of a militarily relevant province thereafter, and neither are his relatives. An exception to

the rule seems to have been Vir(i)us Lupus, who is attested as praeses of Arabia and Syria Coele

between 259 and 270. The use of the term praeses, however, may be significant here, perhaps

indicating that he had restricted responsibilities: indeed, he probably held these positions while

Odaenathus was basically governing the East, who obviously held most of the military

responsibility in that area in those days.61

Thus, the senators belonging to the analyzed gentes

were increasingly deployed in those parts of the Empire that were not heavily struck by repeated

invasions and enduring warfare and that had a traditionally high status. As always these senators

were both well qualified to govern these parts of the Empire and were acceptable to local

aristocracies in those relatively rich, developed areas. In this way, they were still appointed to

positions which were prestigious, but which did not involve too much actual military power.

2.3. Defining a nucleus within the senatorial elite

As has been demonstrated by this analysis and discussed in the previous section, the gentes that

held a considerable proportion of the (ordinary) consulates, proconsulships in Africa and Asia

and city prefectures in Rome between AD 193 and 284 had several points in common: (a) they

61

On Virius Lupus in the East under Odaenathus, see Hartmann (2001), 192, although he does not go into more

detail on Virius Lupus‟ activities.

58

constituted a group with a relatively high percentage of patricians, which (b) was strongly

connected to the Italic peninsula and the city of Rome, and which (c) was, especially when third-

century crises were coming to a head from 240 until 284, particularly mobilized in the non-

military sphere and in geographical areas which were not struck by long-term crises. Regularly

holding the most prestigious consular positions of the senatorial cursus honorum, this group of

families can obviously be considered a significant stratum within the senatorial elite. They

managed to maintain or increase their power and status during a substantial proportion of the

period under discussion, thus forming a nucleus within the senatorial elite (see Figure 1).

Despite, or perhaps due to, the gradual decline of military responsibility, these families

evidently strived for continuation of membership in this senatorial nucleus: they took strategic

measures to ensure intergenerational participation. They established ties with each other through

intermarriage, and adoption was employed to compensate for cases where no (male) children

survived into adulthood. In this way, alliances were created between families and property,

wealth and status was transmitted smoothly. As discussed above, the Caesonii were connected to

the gens Ovinia through nuptial bonds, and they apparently established relations with the Anicii

at the end of the third century as well, as the nomenclature of fourth-century members of the gens

suggests: Iunius Caesonius Nicomachus Anicius Faustus Paulinus and Amnius Manius Caesonius

Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus.62

The Anicii may also have maintained relations with the Hedii.63

As it seems, the third-century Postumii descended from Postumius Festus, consul suffectus in

160. His daughter married Flavius Titianus, grandson of an eques who had been governor of

Egypt under Hadrianus and son of Flavius Claudius Sulpicianus. The latter‟s daughter married

Pertinax and thus became empress in 193.64

Valerius Claudius Acilius Priscil(l)ianus Maximus‟

name indicates that the Valerii united with the Acilii at some point in the third century. When he

was consul iterum in 256, his colleague Acilius Glabrio apparently was a relative.65

Suggestions

that the gens Fulvia Aemiliana was related to the gens Bruttia have been made, based on the

nomenclature of the consul II ordinarius in 180, L. Fulvius ... C. Bruttius Praesens.66

An Egnatius

Proculus who held a suffect consulship at an uncertain date seems to have been the son-in-law of

62

See Settipani (2000), 347-348. 63

See PLRE I, Paulinus 16; Settipani (2000), 406-7. 64

See Settipani (2000), 373, for a stemma. 65

See Settipani (2000), 227-228 for hypotheses on the alliance. 66

Dietz (1980), 161-163.

59

Marius Perpetuus, consul ordinarius 237.67

The Egnatii Proculi probably belonged to a separate

branch, but seem to have been related to the Egnatii Victores. That intensifying relations with

other gentes through nuptial bonds and adoption could have far-reaching results is demonstrated

by the example of these Egnatii and the Hedii Lolliani. The sister of the Hedii Lolliani who

where consules ordinarii in 209 and 211 married one of the Egnatii (Egnatius Victor, consul

suffectus before 207).68

Their daughter, (Egnatia) Mariniana married the future emperor Publius

Licinius Valerianus and gave birth to the future emperor Publius Licinius Egnatius Gallienus.

Although the name Lollianus thus disappears from the consular fasti after 225, the family merged

with the Egnatii and later with the Licinii. In this way, the family remained important, though less

prominent, until Gallienus was killed in 268 and probably took most of his relatives down with

him. The example demonstrates not only the positive results of strategic familial alliances, but

also the fact that they were still no guarantee for continuity.

While the prospects for social mobility gradually increased from the second century

onward and more and more homines novi entered the ordo senatorius, the possibilities of

penetrating this senatorial inner circle must have been severely restricted. In his book on the

urban elites of third-century Roman Egypt, Tacoma states that local elites, as it was usually

thought,

consisted of a limited number of families that stayed in power for generations on end. They closely

guarded their privileged position. [...] As a consequence of the fact that children inherited the

wealth and power of their parents and married with children of families of similar wealth, these

families formed a close group, with little room for outsiders.69

Although Tacoma stresses that continuity for more than two generations was likely the exception

rather than the rule for the Egyptian urban elites, he observes that some families in Egypt

remained part of the elite for many generations. Tacoma argues that the position of the urban

elites in third-century Egypt was fragile and introduces the concept of „cyclical mobility‟, which

implies that if elites failed to replace themselves, a sub-elite which presumably strove for elite

67

Or, more unlikely, he was son-in-law of the Marius Perpetuus who was consul suffectus circa 203. On this matter,

see PIR² E 31; Dietz (1980) 189; Settipani (2000), 399. 68

Q. (Hedius) Lollianus Plautius Avitus was consul ordinarius in 209 and (Hedius) Terentius Gentianus in 211. 69

Tacoma (2006), 231.

60

status stood ready to fill the vacancies.70

This concept of elite circulation seems also to have been

applicable to the central senatorial elite dealt with in this chapter: obviously, some families

remained part of the senatorial nucleus for many generations, so there seems to have been

intergenerational continuity. Although this continuity was never guaranteed, there were ways to

enhance the chances. As the capacity of the third-century urban elites in Egypt to remain in

power should not be underestimated, as Tacoma argues, neither should the capacity of central

elite families who belonged to the senatorial inner circle. As demonstrated above, strategic

alliances through marriage and adoption were of paramount importance and could even for a

generation create the impression that a child continued both lines, although eventually continuity

remained reserved for the paternal branch. A (possibly fictitious) anecdote of the emperor

Valerianus, visiting public baths with his general staff, shows how elites would manipulate

adoption strategically. Through Ulpius Crinitus, who allegedly was the general in command of

the Illyrian and Thracian frontier, the author of the Historia Augusta says:

According to the custom of our ancestors, Valerian Augustus, - a custom which my own family had

held particularly dear, - men of the highest birth have always chosen the most courageous to be

their sons, in order that those families which either were dying out or had lost their offspring by

marriage might gain luster from the fertility of a borrowed stock.71

In the end, it was membership in the senatorial nucleus, not the history of a person‟s family that

was important. Tacoma‟s statements that „elite marriages were endogamous in a social and

geographical respect‟ and „isogamous in that marriages occurred between people of roughly

equal status‟ also applies for the senatorial elite families examined here.72

Yet, if despite all these possibilities for strategic alliances the senatorial inner circle failed

to regenerate itself, opportunities permitted sub-elite to penetrate the senatorial nucleus. It is

noteworthy that more than two-third (67%) of the analyzed gentes who eventually belonged to

the senatorial nucleus defined here reached consular rank and thus joined the central senatorial

elite during the reigns of Marcus Aurelius (28%) or Septimius Severus (39%) (see table 4).

70

Tacoma (2006), 156-160; 232. 71

HA, Vita Aurel. 14, 5. 72

Tacoma (2006), 242-243.

61

Table 4

Gens Consular from

Acilii AD 24 (Tiberius)

Anicii AD 198 (Septimius Severus)

Brutii AD 118/119 (Hadrianus)

Caesonii AD 197/198 (Septimius Severus)

Catii 2nd

century AD (Antoninus Pius?)

Claudii Pompeiani Circa AD 167 (Marcus Aurelius)

Claudii Severi AD 112 (Traianus)

Egnatii AD 207 (Septimius Severus)

Fulvii Aemiliani AD 155/160 (Marcus Aurelius)

Hedii Lolliani AD 114 (Traianus)

Marii AD 199/200 (Septimius Severus)

Nummii AD 206 (Septimius Severus)

Pollieni AD 170/175 (Marcus Aurelius)

Pomponii AD 94 (Domitianus)

Postumii AD 160 (Marcus Aurelius)

Valerii 509 BC (Republican era)

Vettii AD 175/176 (Marcus Aurelius)

Virii AD 196/197 (Septimius Severus)

The widespread pestilences and the many wars which afflicted the Empire under Marcus

Aurelius, and the Parthian wars, but especially the civil wars and the resulting senatorial

executions and confiscations under Septimius Severus may have prevented the central senatorial

elite in general and the senatorial nucleus in particular to reproduce.73

This would explain the

relatively large group of consular newcomers during those reigns: there was a need for renewal.

Ironically, some of those newcomers were successful homines novi, who seem to have been

rewarded for their loyalty in military crises, as was the case with Claudius Pompeianus, general

under Marcus Aurelius, and Marius Maximus and Virius Lupus, generals who were mobilized by

Septimius Severus during his early reign (see Chapter 4).

The question of how long a family generally served within the senatorial nucleus cannot

be answered easily. Some of the families which flourished in the third century claimed descent

from Republican gentes, like the Acilii Glabriones et Aviolae and the Valerii Messalae. As noted

above, however, by far the largest group obtained consular status during the reigns of Marcus

Aurelius or Septimius Severus. At the end of the Severan dynasty or perhaps somewhat later,

73

On the wars and pestilence under Marcus Aurelius, see, for instance, Eutropius, Breviarium 8, 12-14; on the

impact of the Antonine plague and its consequences for demographic developments, see, for instance, Duncan-Jones

(1996); Bagnall (2000); Scheidel (2002); Bruun (2003); on the executions and confiscations among senators under

Septimius Severus, see Dio 76, 8, 4, p. 214-215; HA, Vita Sev. 12-13; Birley (1988), 127-128. Cf. Hahn-Leunissen

(1990), 68 and 61, summarizing risks to which senators were exposed as follows: a violent end by imperial mandate,

death in battle, death as a result of disease contracted while on campaign, and exile. Clearly, the number of risks for

senators decreased in the third century when not only did they rarely participate in campaigns, but increasing

imperial absence in Rome helped them escape emperors‟ attention.

62

about mid-third century, almost half of the analyzed gentes disappeared from the consular fasti.

Consequently members of those families were no longer qualified to carry out consular top

positions. It were not only those families which descended from supporters of Marcus Aurelius

and Septimius Severus which disappeared (temporarily) from the senatorial elite after the

Severan dynasty had stopped providing emperors. Surely, some of the „Antonine‟ and „Severan‟

gentes lost their position in the senatorial nucleus when Severan dynasty ended, such as for

instance the Claudii Pompeiani, the Claudii Severi and the Marii. Yet the positions of other

gentes which had obtained consular status well before the second half of the second century AD,

such as the Acilii and the Bruttii, also seem to have (temporarily) declined.74

Although it must be

noted that (temporary) absence from the sources does not necessarily imply social decline, the

phenomenon that some families became entirely imperceptible after about 250 indicates that they

opted out of politics – either voluntary or involuntary –, especially when members of those

families did not reappear in consular positions in the fourth century. In that case, a gens may have

continued to be a senatorial family, but should clearly no longer be regarded as belonging to the

central senatorial elite, let alone the senatorial nucleus.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I would like to stress once more that the senatorial

nucleus defined and discussed in this section must have consisted of more gentes than the

eighteen which were included in my analysis. Inevitably, my criteria have obscured some

families from view. However, the intention of this analysis is not to paint a complete picture of

the senatorial nucleus, but to check the level of continuity in the relationship between status and

power by looking at some manifestations thereof and finding where continuities lie.

Senators and statistics

The senatorial elite of the first three centuries AD has been analyzed by Hopkins and Burton in

1983.75

Based on their intergenerational analysis of senatorial membership and holders of the

consulate they rejected both the traditional view that membership of the senate was hereditary

and Alföldy‟s notion of a de facto inheritable consulate under the Antonines.76

Their statistical

analysis and its conclusions were heavily criticized, particularly by Hahn and Leunissen, who

have argued that „numbers and statistics provide no ready answers to historical questions‟ as they

74

Although it must be admitted that the Acilii seem to have had a revival from the fifth century onwards. 75

Hopkins and Burton in Hopkins (1983), 120-200. 76

Hopkins and Burton in Hopkins (1983), 126-127, contra Alföldy (1976), 288-289, and id. (1977), 84-94.

63

„depend upon judicious interpretation‟.77

I agree with them that the conclusions of Hopkins and

Burton do not follow from a merely statistical analysis of sample studies and that a

supplementary study of individual cases is essential.78

Even though this chapter started from a

different research question, Hopkins‟ and Burton‟s study of inheritance raises important

questions for this study; therefore I find it valuable to discuss briefly how the outcome of my

prosopographical analysis relates to their results.

Two basic inferences shared by both Hopkins‟ and Burton‟s analysis and mine are, first,

the distinction between membership in the senatorial order and full active membership in the

senate, which involved holding senatorial office, as well as, second, the identification of an elite

within the senate consisting of members of consular rank. I haven argued one step further in

recognizing a nucleus of several families which dominated the senatorial elite, as they provided a

substantial share of a number of high consular positions in the third century.79

Hopkins and

Burton also identified a two-tier system within the senatorial elite, but they distinguished between

a small inner-core of ordinary consuls, most of whom had consular origins, and a larger, outer

band of suffect consuls, many from non-consular families. From that, they furthermore

distinguished a „grand set‟ and a „power set‟. Their „grand set‟, comprising the patrician and other

most noble senators, often sons of consuls, was kept away from military power. According to

Hopkins and Burton, some of the senators belonging to this set probably comforted themselves

with social influence and with an extravagant social life in Rome, which both expressed and

enhanced their status. Their „power set‟, on the other hand, consisted of senators who governed

the major military provinces and men who served the emperors as commanders of legions. Only a

few of them had consular or even senatorial fathers: most of them came from families new to the

political elite, and most descended from rich and respectable Italian or provincial gentry. A small

minority consisted of social climbers, who made their way up from a less respectable social

milieu, usually through military service.80

As my prosopographical analysis has demonstrated,

both their distinction between a group of ordinary and one of suffect consuls and their division

77

Hahn and Leunissen (1990), 77. Cf. Duncan-Jones (1984) with some critical notes. See also Burton‟s response to

Hahn and Leunissen: Burton (1995). 78

Cf. Duncan-Jones (1984), 273, who also criticizes the absence of a summary of the base data in Hopkins‟ and

Burton‟s study. 79

Cf. Hahn and Leunissen (1990), who argue that the „consular aristocracy was such a multifarious and illustrious

social grouping‟, that it is questionable whether they can „all be painted in exact mathematical strokes‟. 80

On the „grand set‟ and „power set‟, see Hopkins and Burton in Hopkins (1983), 172-173.

64

between a grand (status) set and a power set tend to oversimplify matters, at least where the third

century is concerned.

Hopkins and Burton also recognize considerable persistence by some senatorial elite

families over several generations under the emperors. Likewise, they acknowledge that the

senatorial elite living in Rome was small and that most members must have known each other.

Their analysis, however, only focuses on paternal descent, and with that they lose track of

alternative interrelations within the senatorial nucleus. That is why they did not recognize that a

part of the senatorial elite apparently did band together effectively to minimize the risks to their

individual and especially their collective status.81

Just as the senatorial elite during the Principate was not as weak as Hopkins and Burton

present them, so also the distinction between a „grand set‟ and a „power set‟ within the senatorial

elite ceases to exist in the course of the third century, especially from about 240 onward, when

senators were apparently largely replaced as military commanders and governors of militarily

relevant (frontier) provinces by equites. Furthermore, the relative power exercised by members of

the senatorial nucleus in areas such as Italy, Africa and Asia should not be underestimated: the

absence of large numbers of military men of relatively high social standing in those regions and

the decreasing presence of emperors and imperial relatives in those areas in the third century

must have improved their capacity to influence local politics.82

Referring to them as a „grand set‟,

a mere status set, as Hopkins and Burton did, does not seem therefore to correspond to third-

century historical reality. Moreover, what they had to give up in the military sphere of authority,

they probably gained in the civil-administrative, legal and financial spheres, as the evidence

points at an increasing number of curatores, correctores, iudices and iuridici – that is, ad hoc

appointments for which members of the senatorial elite were extremely suitable. Thus it was not

only the formal status of the senatorial elite which remained high, for their collective power did

not decline as dramatically as has often been argued either.

As to circulation in the senatorial elite: my analysis has shown that opportunities to

penetrate the senatorial nucleus evidently increased in periods in which senatorial mortality

heightened, such as the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus. Hopkins‟ and Burton‟s

81

Pace Hopkins and Burton in Hopkins (1983), 175. 82

Mitchell (1993) has demonstrated that military presence in Asia Minor increased in the third century AD. This

military personnel (e.g. beneficiarii at their stationes), however, was not of high social standing and does not seem to

have dominated the province. As in other parts of the Empire, they probably concentrated their dwellings, and

therefore their influence, mainly around cross roads and imperial property.

65

additional suggestion of political withdrawal as another catalyst of circulation within the

senatorial elite may be true, but cannot be confirmed by individual case studies: the reason why

families (temporarily) ceased to be part of the senatorial elite can rarely be recovered. Although

Hopkins and Burton detected a remarkable drop in succession rates in the senatorial elite in the

first three centuries AD, they have argued that succession rates were significantly higher among

high-ranking senators. This assumption seems to be affirmed by my analysis. Whereas the

number of provincials within the senatorial order was steadily rising from the later first century

onward, and the percentage of members of the senate with provincial origins grew, provincials

did not penetrate the senatorial nucleus on a large scale, or, if they did, their attachment to Italy

and Rome apparently came to overshadow that of their provincial patria. Based on the notion that

provincial newcomers kept the bulk of their property outside Italy and saw their expenses

increase immensely while they lived in Rome and participated in political life, Hopkins and

Burton argued that many of those men probably preferred to return to their patria after having

completed the senatorial cursus honorum: at home, they could derive more power from their

senatorial status than in Rome, while an Augustan law kept some priviliges associated with

senatorial status for sons of senators and their descendants in the male line down to the great-

grandson. Large-scale „political withdrawal‟ after one generation may explain why provincials

hardly penetrated the senatorial nucleus.83

Yet, as this conclusion cannot be drawn from Hopkins‟

and Burton‟s analysis or mine, it remains an argumentum ex silentio.84

The position of the

senatorial nucleus, however, was apparently not weakened by rising provincials.

The Roman senate in the third century AD may not have been a hereditary status group.85

Yet, as my analysis has shown, membership in the senatorial nucleus seems to have been more or

less hereditary, since members entered into strategic alliances with each other to increase their

chances to remain in this senatorial inner core. Moreover, this group‟s level of power in specific

geographic areas and spheres of authority should not be underrated.

83

Hopkins and Burton in Hopkins (1983), 196. 84

Hahn and Leunissen (1990), 79-80, consider it unlikely that particularly the sons of consuls who came from

provincial families will have withdrawn from political life as they were expected to build up and use their political

connections in Rome in the service of their patriae as patroni. 85

Hopkins and Burton in Hopkins (1983), 136.

66

2.4. Conclusion

This chapter discussed continuity within the senatorial elite. Beginning with a number of consular

positions within central imperial administration, which were principally assigned to senators both

before and after the period under discussion and in which senatorial power manifested itself most

clearly, I have inventoried a substantial proportion of the senatorial elite which served the

emperors at the level of central administration between AD 193 and 284. These lists enabled me

to mark out eighteen gentes which apparently dominated the senatorial elite in the period under

scrutiny: these gentes provided a substantial percentage of the (ordinary) consuls, proconsuls in

Africa and Asia, and city prefects in Rome. A detailed prosopographical analysis has shown

similarities in the profiles of these families which collectively constituted (part of) a nucleus

within the central senatorial elite, as they were able to maintain or even improve their positions

during the period of crises. All families in this senatorial inner circle were strongly attached to

Italy, and a considerable proportion of them had or reached patrician status at some point in the

third century.

The existence of a senatorial (patrician) nucleus was not a novelty. Previous studies have

established similar situations in the first and second centuries AD.86

Yet a gradual shift in power

dimensions, as defined by Dahl, occurs: in the course of the third century the senatorial elite by

degrees lost its influence in the military sphere to equites. Their scope of power was thus

increasingly restricted to civil-administrative, legal and financial positions. The domain in which

they exercised power was also limited: they were assigned increasingly to geographical regions

which not only experienced few long-term problems such as repeated invasions and enduring

warfare, but also kept a traditionally high status within the Empire, for example the provinces of

Africa and Asia. Moreover, they were also appointed to functions in Rome and Italy. From the

240s onwards, members of this senatorial nucleus were rarely appointed in provinces occupied by

legions. However, the amount of power they exercised inside their assigned areas should not be

underestimated: that the emperors sojourned in Rome less frequently than ever before, and

focused less attention on relatively peaceful areas such as Africa and Asia, especially after the

Severan era, enabled this group to strengthen its position and exercise quite some influence there.

Besides, no cabals of military men existed in those regions to compete with the senatorial elite in

86

See for instance Eck (1970) and Alföldy (1977). Obviously, having analyzed families which belonged to the

senatorial nucleus between AD 193 and 284, the contrast between the first and second centuries and the third century

has remained underexposed. However, the aim here was to reconstruct the process of shifts in power and status

within the third century. A comparison with previous centuries was beyond the scope of this research.

67

status and dominate in claiming power. So despite the territorial restriction, the level of control of

the senatorial nucleus over those areas not only remained consistent, but it probably even grew.

Although the power of this group was decreasingly founded on actual military power,

their other power bases remained intact: their traditionally high social standing, their compactness

in size and consequent cohesiveness, and their bonds to Rome and Italy. This group obviously

was aware of the advantages of belonging to the senatorial elite in general and the inner circle in

particular, as they strove for continuation of their membership by strategically entering into

alliances with other senatorial elite families. Senatorial elites were as always very well qualified

to govern the relatively peaceful parts of the Empire, which were rich and developed, as they not

only remained men of noble birth, but also well-educated and wealthy men. This made them

acceptable to local elites in the areas which were continually assigned to them. Again, the only

change in their status profile was their decreasing military role. By continually appointing those

senators at such positions, emperors gave them the honors due to them without giving them too

much actual (i.e. military) power. In the earlier Principate, emperors had acted likewise towards

the patrician nucleus of the senatorial order, and both the emperors as well as the members of

elite senatorial families seemed to agree with this policy. The latter maintained their social status

without taking too much risk, and the emperors were probably glad that certain mechanisms of

the old system did not call for change but continued to function as they had done before. Keeping

the senatorial elite families satisfied in this way would also legitimate their position all the more.

Yet, as has been noted in Chapter 1, communication of the senators with the third-century

emperors became increasingly complicated as the changing background and priorities of the

emperors caused that they were no longer on a par with the senatorial elite.

In sum, the events of the third century did not transform Roman society completely:

prestigious senatorial top positions remained in the hands of (a nucleus of) the central senatorial

elite as before, and were not (permanently) transferred to equites. As always, the possibilities to

penetrate this senatorial core group or even to become a member of the senatorial elite were

restricted and they do not seem to have been eased by the increasing prospects for social mobility

from the second century onwards. Senators who did not belong to the senatorial elite or its inner

circle were obviously affected more severely by the crises of the third century, as has been

discussed by many scholars. Here, I have sought to demonstrate that along with changes, there

was also a certain level of continuity, although chiefly for a restricted group of the senatorial

68

order. However, the gradual disappearance of the coincidence of high social status and the ability

to exercise power in the Roman Empire in the third century is undeniable, as will become clear

from the next chapter as well.

69

EXCURSUS:

PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE SENATORIAL ELITE FAMILIES

The following pages discuss the senatorial elite families in detail. Their background, position

before, during, and after the period AD 193 to 284, as well as relations with senators inside and

outside their gens, are described both schematically and in a narrative account. The gens

Caesonia is only described schematically here. Information on careers and relations is generally

derived from PIR and PLRE, in which references to the primary sources can be found. Where

other scholarly works supplement or correct PIR and PLRE, this is stated in footnotes.

1. The Acilii (Glabriones et Aviolae)1

Name M’. Acilius Faustinus (PIR² A 57)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 210 with A. Triarius Rufinus

Notes - Son of M‟. Acilius Glabrio, consul II ordinarius 186 (PIR² A 69).

- Perhaps brother of Acilius Glabrio, clarissimus vir (Dig. 4, 4, 18, 1).2

- Probably brother-in-law of Ti. Claudius Cleobulus, consul suffectus early 3rd

century.3

- Perhaps father of M‟. Acilius Glabrio, consul ordinarius 256.4

- Probably father-in-law of Claudius Acilius Cleobulus, who seems to have been his

nephew.5

- Perhaps uncle of M‟. Acilius Aviola, consul ordinarius 239.6

1 It cannot be determined with certainty whether the Acilii should be divided into two separate branches, the Aviolae

and the Glabriones, or whether the Acilii were one branch using two cognomina simultaneously in the third century.

On this problem, see Settipani (2000-2002), addenda I, 14-15. On the Acilii Glabriones, see also Dondin-Payre

(1993); Jacques (1986), 152-155. See PIR², pars I (1933), 12, for a stemma Glabrionum and, more recently, Settipani

(2000), 198. 2 Digesta 4, 4, 18, 1: (Acilius Glabrio) quem Severus et Antoninus non audierunt desiderantem restitui adversus

fratrem. („Indeed, the deified Severus and the emperor Antoninus did not hear Glabrio Acilius when, without

alleging a reason, he sought restitutio against his brother after they had heard and determined his case‟ (trans.

Watson)). 3 Claudius Cleobulus was married to Acilia Frestana, who seems to have been Faustinus‟ sister. Settipani (2000),

189-191; Leunissen (1989), 191; Jacques (1986), 152. On the Claudii (Cleobuli), see Jacques (1986), 173. 4 Leunissen (1989), 372.

5 CIL 09.2334 = ILS 1134 (Allifae, Italy) mentions Acilia Gabinia Frestana, daughter of Claudius Acilius Cleobulus

and granddaughter of Acilius Faustinus. Cleobulus thus seems to have been married to a daughter of Acilius

Faustinus. Settipani (2000), 189-190. Settipani suggests that the name Gabinia came from the girl‟s grandmother

(Faustinus‟ wife) and adds that she was probably the daughter of C. Gabinius Barbarus Pompeianus, consul suffectus

194 and proconsul Asiae 212. This assumption, however, seems to lack evidential support and to be based on

nomenclature only. 6 According to Settipani (2000), 173 and 198.

70

Name M’. Acilius Aviola (PIR² A 51)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 239 with Gordianus III

Notes - Perhaps nephew of M‟. Acilius Faustinus, consul ordinarius 210.

Name M(’?). Acilius Glabrio7 (PIR² A 72)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 256 with L. Valerius Maximus (consul II)

- Proconsul Africae?? 3rd

century?8

Notes - Descendant (son?) of M‟. Acilius Faustinus, consul ordinarius 210.

The patrician family of the Acilii, which was probably Italic and claimed descent from Aeneas,

was politically engaged since the Republican period.9 The first Acilius whose consulship can be

dated precisely was Gaius Calpurnius Acilius Aviola in AD 24. Members of the gens Acilia

regularly held consulates during the first and second centuries AD.10

Three Acilii held the position of consul between AD 193 and 284, all as ordinarii. Acilius

Faustinus was consul in 210, and is generally assumed to have been the son of Acilius Glabrio

(PIR² A 69), consul II ordinarius in 186, who was highly honored in the senate by emperor

Pertinax.11

Faustinus may have been the uncle of Acilius Aviola, consul in 239. Acilius Glabrio,

consul in 256, may have been Faustinus‟ son. Yet, the interval of forty-six years between their

consulates is quite long, especially within a patrician family whose members usually held

consulates at a young age.

7 Christol (1986), 99, points out that his praenomen appears on the inscription from Pisaurum (CIL 11.6335 = ILS

7218) as Marcus (M). However, one would expect Manius (M‟.), since he is probably a descendant of M‟. Acilius

Glabrio, consul II ordinarius 186, and M‟. Acilius Faustinus, consul ordinarius 210. 8 An Acilius Glabrio was governor of Africa, but the date of his appointment is disputable; it may alternatively have

been in the second century AD. Thomasson (1996), 94, no. 132. 9 On their Italic origin, see Dietz (1980), 352, who points out that the Acilii had properties in Allifae and Ostia. On

the claim that the Acilii descended from Aeneas, see Herodianus, 2, 3, 3-4. According to Jacques (1986), 152, the

Acilii entered the senate late third century BC and became patrician in the first century AD. 10

M‟. Acilius Aviola, consul ordinarius 54; M‟. Acilius Glabrio, consul ordinarius 91; M‟. Acilius Aviola, consul

ordinarius 122; M‟. Acilius Glabrio, consul ordinarius 124; M‟. Acilius Glabrio Cn. Cornelius Severus, consul

ordinarius 152; M‟. Acilius Vibius Faustinus, consul suffectus 179; M‟. Acilius Glabrio, consul suffectus circa 173,

consul II ordinarius 186. See Settipani (2000), 198. 11

Dio 74, 3, 3-4, mentions that Pertinax granted Acilius Glabrio (along with Claudius Pompeianus) the privilege to

sit beside him in the senate, which was an exceptional honor. Herodianus 2, 3, 3-4, even states that Pertinax offered

the imperial throne to Glabrio. Although the event was probably invented, it does reflect the high status of the gens

Acilia in Herodianus‟ day. See also Champlin (1979), 289; 291-297, who states (295-296): „…in the early years of

the sole rule of Commodus […] Acilius Glabrio stood very close to the throne, both as counsellor and potential heir.

In 193 he would stand with Claudius Pompeianus as the guardian of the dynasty and of legitimacy.‟

71

Aulus Triarius Rufinus, colleague of Acilius Faustinus in 210, was the son of Triarius

Maternus signo Lascivius, consul ordinarius in 185. Acilius Glabrio‟s colleague in 256 was

Lucius Valerius Maximus, representative of one of the other senatorial elite families of the third

century, the Valerii (Messallae) (see below). Valerius Maximus‟ full name, Lucius Valerius

Claudius Acilius Priscilianus Maximus, indicates that there may have been a connection between

him and the Acilii.12

Acilius Aviola had an even more impressive colleague in 239: the emperor

Gordianus III, who held his first consulship. As Dietz points out, the fact that Acilius Aviola was

designated consul in the course of 238, probably not long after Pupienus and Balbinus were

killed, reveals that the influence of the high aristocracy did not decrease immediately after the

deaths of these emperors.13

From 256 to 284, there are very few indications that members of this family held

consulates, proconsulates or the city prefecture: M‟. Acilius Balbus Sabinus, who seems to have

been connected to the gens, was probably consul suffectus under Diocletian, after 284. The same

goes for Acilius Clarus. During the fourth century, no member of this family seems to have

reached consular rank. The next consular Anicius seems to have been Anicius Acilius Glabrio

Faustus (PLRE I, Faustus 2), only in AD 438. His consulship seems to have been the beginning

of a true revival of the Acilii as consular senators. At the end of the fifth century the Acilii

provided their last consuls.14

12

Settipani (2000), 227-228, offers two hypotheses. First, that Valerius Maximus‟ father married a sister of M‟.

Acilius Faustinus, consul ordinarius 210. The other is that Valerius Maximus was a grandson of Ti. Claudius

Cleobulus, consul suffectus early 3rd

century, and Acilia Frestana, sister of Faustinus, consul ordinarius 210. 13

Dietz (1980), 39. Acilius Aviola‟s consulate could also indicate that different factions existed among the high

aristocracy and that his supported Gordianus III‟s against Pupienus and Balbinus. 14

Settipani (2000-2002), add. I, 15-16, assumes that M‟. Acilius Balbus Sabinus held a suffect consulship under

Diocletian, based on the fact that he was curator alvei Tiberei circa 286/305. According to Jacques (1986), 153, an

Acilius Clarus, vir consularis, praeses Numidiae (PLRE I, Clarus 2), may have been related to the gens as well. He

has been identified with an Acilius Clarus, who was corrector Italiae in 286. Jacques, however, follows Arnheim and

Christol, who suggest that the corrector was the father of the praeses of Numidia, whose position as praeses should

then be dated somewhat later, circa 312-320. Yet, it cannot be determined that an Acilius Clarus held a consulate

before 284. Neither can it be determined whether Acilius Severus, consul in 323, praefectus urbi 325-6 (PLRE I,

Severus 16), belonged to the same branch of Acilii or to a separate branch from Brixia. On this matter, see Jacques

(1986), 154 no. 28, 155, and 99 where he speaks of a „relativo offuscamento (relative obscurity)‟ of the gens in the

fourth century. The other fifth-century consuls from the gens Acilia were Rufius Acilius Maecius Placidus, consul

ordinarius 481; Anicius Acilius Aginantius Faustus, consul ordinarius 483; Rufius Acilius Sibidius, consul

ordinarius 488. See Settipani (2000), 198.

72

2. The Anicii15

Name Q. Anicius Faustus (PIR² A 595)

Cursus honorum - Legatus Aug(g?) pr pr Numidiae 197-201

- Consul suffectus (in absentia) 198

- Legatus Augg pr pr Moesiae Superioris 202?-205?

- Proconsul Asiae 217-21916

Notes - Probably father of Anicius Faustus Paulinus, consul suffectus before 230.17

Name (Q. or Sex.?) Anicius Faustus Paulinus (PIR² A 596 and 599)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus before 230

- Legatus Aug pr pr Moesiae Inferioris ca 229/230

Notes - Probably son of Q. Anicius Faustus, consul suffectus 198.

- Married to a daughter of Sex. Cocceius Vibianus (PIR² C 1232), consul suffectus late

2nd

/early 3rd

century, proconsul Africae early 3rd

century, or brother-in-law of a son of this

Cocceius Vibianus.18

- Father (or uncle?) of M. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Flavianus, consul suffectus circa

250/252, and of Sex. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Paulinus, consul suffectus before 260/268.

Name M. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Flavianus (PIR² A 597/PLRE I, Flavianus 8)

Cursus honorum - Curator rei publicae Cirtae 251

- Consul suffectus ca 250/2

Notes - Probably son (or nephew?) of Anicius Faustus Paulinus, consul suffectus before 230, and

brother of Sex. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Paulinus, consul before 260/8.19

- Patricius.

15

See Corbier (1982), 741, for a stemma of the third-century Anicii. Alternative stemmata can be found in Settipani

(2000), 348 and 432. PLRE I, 1133, stemma 7, lays out the Anicii from the mid-third century onward. 16

The dates of the positions mentioned here are based on Leunissen (1989), passim. 17

Leunissen (1989), 373. 18

Corbier (1982), 741, followed by Leunissen (1989), 166, note 165, thinks Paulinus married a daughter of Cocceius

Vibianus. Settipani (2000), 348, on the other hand, thinks that a daughter of Anicius Faustus, consul suffectus 198,

married a son of Sex. Cocceius Vibianus, and that Faustus‟ sons included M. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Flavianus,

consul suffectus circa 250/252, and Cocceius Anicius Faustus Paulinus, consul before 260/268. For the moment, the

exact lineage remains unclear. 19

Novak (1976), 26; 56; Corbier (1982), 741.

73

Name Sex. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Paulinus (PIR² A 600/PLRE I, Paulinus 16)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus before 260/8

- Proconsul Africae ca 265/820

Notes - Probably son (or nephew?) of Anicius Faustus Paulinus, consul suffectus before 230, and

brother of M. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Flavianus, consul suffectus ca 250/2.

- Ancestor (father?) of Anicius Faustus (PLRE I, Faustus 6), consul II ordinarius 298 with

Virius Gallus, praefectus urbi 299-300, and of Paulinus (PLRE I, Paulinus 2), consul

ordinarius 277 with Probus (see above).21

- Claudia Sestia Cocceia Severina (PIR² C 1123), wife of Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius

Avitus, consul ordinarius 209, may have been a relative.22

- At the end of the 3rd

or the beginning of the 4th

century, the Anicii seem to have become

connected to the Caesonii.23

The Anicii appear in the sources in the second century AD. Their geographical origin has been

disputed. Some scholars consider them to have been notables from the African city Uzappa,

while others think they originated from Praeneste in Italy.24

Anicius Faustus was the first member of the gens Anicia to become consul (suffectus) at

the end of the second century. He may have been a homo novus.25

Anicius Faustus held his

consulship in absentia while he was governor of Numidia, after which he became consular

governor of Moesia Superior. This was the last position he held under Septimius Severus. For

unknown reasons, the emperor refused to let him participate in the raffle for the governorships of

the proconsular provinces. It was not until the reign of Macrinus that Anicius Faustus finally

became governor of Asia, replacing Gaius Iulius Asper, who was recalled by Macrinus before he

had even reached the province.26

20

According to Thomasson (1996), 92-93, although he admits that the appointment may also have taken place

between 276 and 285 under Probus, Carinus or Carinus‟ sons. 21

Christol (1986), 115 suggested that Cocceius Anicius Faustus Paulinus may have been their father. Cf. Settipani

(2000), 347, note 8; 432. 22

According to PLRE I, Paulinus 16, 681. See also Settipani (2000), 406-407. 23

This assumption is based on the names of M. Iunius Caesonius Nicomachus Anicius Faustus Paulinus, praetor

urbanus 321, and of Amnius Manius Caesonius Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus, consul 334, praefectus urbi 334-335.

The fact that some Anicii in the fourth and fifth century bore the cognomen Bassus indicates that they may have been

descendants of L. Caesonius Ovinius Manlius Rufinianus Bassus and his son Caesonius Bassus, consul 317. See

Settipani (2000), 348 for a stemma, and 347, note 8 for an alternative suggested by Chausson. 24

On their origin, see Corbier (1982), 740, and Leunissen (1989), 365. 25

Jacques (1986), 158. 26

Dio 79, 22, 2-4. Novak (1976), 40-41, suggests that Faustus was a protégé of Plautianus and that this caused the

lapse from favor after 205 and during the reign of Caracalla. Novak considers it significant that Faustus re-emerged

under Macrinus, an underling of Plautianus. Novak (1976), 37-38: „Macrinus allowed him to continue in office the

74

An inscription which can be dated to AD 230 mentions Anicius Faustus Paulinus,

probably the son of Anicius Faustus, as governor of Moesia Inferior.27

Since this was a consular

position, it may be assumed that this man was consul suffectus prior to his governorship.

Cocceius Anicius Faustus Flavianus, consul suffectus circa 250/2, and Cocceius Anicius Faustus

Paulinus, proconsul Africae somewhere between 260 and 268, belong to the next generation of

this family, a generation which somehow descended from the Cocceii. By that time, the family,

which descended from a vir militaris, had reached patrician status.28

They are the last consular

Anicii who can be assigned to the period under discussion with certainty.

Two other consulates are doubtful. An Anicius Faustus was consul iterum in 298. It is not

unlikely that he held his first consulship before 284, since an interval of circa twenty years

between the first and second consulship was quite common. Furthermore, it has been suggested

that Paulinus, consul ordinarius in 277 with the emperor Probus, belonged to the gens Anicia as

well, and that he may have been the brother of the consul of 298. The Anicii continued to be an

important consular family during the fourth century, and traceable even afterwards are consuls

bearing this nomen.29

At the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century, the Anicii established relations

with the Caesonii. They may have had relations with the Hedii as well.30

3. The Bruttii31

Name C. Bruttius Praesens (PIR² B 166)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 217 with T. Messius Extricatus

Notes - Grandson of C. Bruttius Praesens (PIR² B 165), consul II ordinarius 180, comes of

Marcus Aurelius and Commodus in the expeditio Sarmatica 173-175 and father-in-law of

following year, thereby displacing Aufidius Fronto, a descendant (son) of an honored Antonine general. Surely,

Macrinus‟ offer of the salary instead of the post to Fronto should be construed as an insult. The novus homo Faustus

in his place only intensified the sting.‟ 27

CIL 3.7473 (Moesia Inferior). 28

M. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Flavianus is called patricius in CIL 08, 07040 = AE 1946, 61 = ILAlg 02, 01, 00625

(Numidia). Novak (1976), 55-56, suggests that this may have happened during the reign of Decius. Jacques (1986),

122-3, suggests that they obtained patrician status circa 230. 29

On Anicius Faustus, consul II 298, and Paulinus, consul ordinarius with Probus 277, see Christol (1986), 114-115;

Kreucher (2003), 199; Settipani (2000), 346-348. On the Anicii after the third century, see Jacques (1986), 158-159;

Settipani (2000), 432. 30

PLRE I, Paulinus 16; Settipani (2000), 406-7. 31

On the Bruttii, see Arnheim (1972), 139-141; Settipani (2000), 340-341 with a stemma.

75

Commodus.

- Son of L. Bruttius Quintius Crispinus (PIR² B 169), consul ordinarius 187.

- Nephew of Crispina Augusta, Commodus‟ wife.

- Brother of C. Bruttius Crispinus, consul ordinarius 224.

- Probably father of C. Bruttius Praesens, consul ordinarius 246.

Name C. (or L.?) Bruttius Crispinus (PIR² B 160)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 224 with App. Claudius Iulianus

Notes - Son of L. Bruttius Quintius Crispinus, consul ordinarius 187.

- Brother of C. Bruttius Praesens, consul ordinarius 217.

Name C. Bruttius Praesens (PIR² B 167)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 246 with C. Al[lius] Albinus

Notes - Probably son of C. Bruttius Praesens, consul ordinarius 217.

- Probably grandfather of Bruttius Praesens (PIR² B 163/PLRE I, Praesens), vir clarissimus

late 3rd

/early 4th

century.

The Bruttii, a family from Volcei (Lucania, Italy), can be traced back to the first century AD, but

the first consular member of this gens was Bruttius Praesens (PIR² B 164) in the second century.

He presumably was the son of an amicus of Plinius and he became consul suffectus under

Hadrianus and again as colleague of Antoninus Pius in 139. His son Bruttius Praesens (PIR² B

165) also held two consulships: in 153 and 180. As comes of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus

during the expeditio Sarmatica he took part in the Marcomannic wars. This Bruttius Praesens was

the father of Bruttius Quintius Crispinus (PIR² B 169), consul ordinarius in 187, and of Bruttia

Crispina, who married Commodus in 178. According to Jacques, the gens had reached patrician

status by that time.32

During the reign of Septimius Severus, no Bruttius is known to have been consul.

Strengthening the ties with a family so closely connected with the Antonines would have fit into

Severus‟ dynastic representation policy at the beginning of his reign.33

However, Crispina was

accused of adultery and exiled to Capri by Commodus, which may explain the absence of the

Bruttii in the consular fasti during Severus‟ reign. Whatever the reason for the absence of the

32

On the geographic origins of the Bruttii, see Leunissen (1989), 359; Jacques (1986), 99; Salway (2000), 147, note

161. Plinius addressed Epistula 7, 3 to a (Bruttius) Praesens (PIR² B 161). This man was probably the father of

Bruttius Praesens, consul II in 139. According to Jacques (1986), 122-123 (cf. 165-166), the gens became patrician

under Antoninus Pius. 33

Mennen (2005), 254-257.

76

Bruttii was, it was only temporary; three more Bruttii became consul ordinarius during the third

century. First came Bruttius Quintius Crispinus‟ sons Bruttius Praesens in 217 and Bruttius

Crispinus in 224. Bruttius Praesens‟ colleague in 217 was Titus Messius Extricatus (PIR² P 518),

who started his career as eques.34

Bruttius Crispinus‟ colleague in 224 was Appius Claudius

Iulianus, who was consul iterum and who had probably been governor of Africa during the reign

of Elagabalus or – less likely – Caracalla. Bruttius Praesens was the last member of the gens

Bruttia who held a consulate in 246 with Gaius Al[lius] Albinus, whose origin and further career

remain unclear. Besides the consulships, no other positions held by these three Bruttii are known

to us.

The fact that the third-century Bruttii all served as ordinarii indicates that their high

status, which probably resulted mainly from their second-century connection with the Antonines,

continued until at least the mid-third century. A vir clarissimus Br(u)ttius Praesens (PIR² B

163/PLRE I, Praesens) mentioned in two inscriptions dated late third or early fourth century

presumably descended from Bruttius Praesens, consul ordinarius 246.35

4. The Caesonii36

Name C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus (PIR² C 210)

Cursus honorum - Triumvir capitalis

- Tribunus militum legionis I Adiutricis ?178/180

- Quaestor provinciae Narbonensis

- Tribunus plebis

- Legatus proconsulis Baeticae ca 185

- Praetor ca 187

- Legatus proconsulis Asiae

- Curator r p Asculanorum

- Legatus Aug legionis VII Claudiae ca 187/190

34

From AE 1977, 171 (Portus, Italy) we know that he was praefectus annonae. Apparently, he was enrolled in the

senate afterwards. Salway (1997), 127-153, rejects the usually accepted notion of Cébeillac-Gervasoni (1979) that

…atus from CIL 6.31776a-6 = ILS 1329; CIL 6.31875 (Roma) is to be identified with T. Messius Extricatus. 35

According to CIL 6.2153 (Roma) and 10.468 (Leucosia, Italy), this man was corrector Lucaniae et Brittiorum and

pontifex maior. Both inscriptions read „Brittius‟. It has been suggested in both PIR² B 163 and PLRE I, Praesens that

this Br(u)ttius Praesens may have been the grandson of Bruttius Praesens, consul 246. Jacques (1986), 99, mentions

that the family is still represented at the beginning of the fourth century „pur senza riacquistare lo splendore

precedente.‟ 36

See PLRE I, 1137, stemma 11 for a family tree of the Caesonii from the mid-third century onward.

77

- Proconsul Achaiae ca 192

- Curator r p Tarracinensium ca 193

- Legatus Aug pr pr Lusitaniae ?194-?197

- Consul suffectus ca 197/198

- Curator r p Teanensium ca 197

- Curator alvei Tiberis ?198/200

- Legatus Aug pr pr Germaniae superioris ?200-?203

- Curator aquarum et Miniciae ?203/213

- Proconsul Africae ?213/215 or 218/222?

- Curator r p Lanivinorum/Lavininorum II

- Comes Aug ?222/235, 231-233?

Notes - Husband of Manilia Lucilla, the sister or daughter of (Ti.) Manilius Fuscus, consul

suffectus 196/7, consul II ordinarius 225.

- Father of L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, consul suffectus ?225/230.

Name L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus (PIR² C 209)

Cursus honorum - Decemvir stlitibus iudicandis

- Quaestor candidatus ca 215/217 or ca 212?

- Praetor candidatus ca 220/222, or ca 217?

- Curator r p Suessanorum

- Curator r p Tuscolanorum/Puteolanorum

- Legatus Africae eodem tempore vice proconsulis ?225/230

- Consul suffectus ?225/230

- Curator alvei Tiberis et cloacarum urbis ?225/230

- Curator aquarum et Miniciae ?230/235

- XXvir ex s c r p curandae 238

- Proconsul Africae not before 240/241

- Electus ad cognoscendas vice Caesaris cognitions 241/254, 242-244?

- Praefectus urbi 241/254, 246?

Notes - Son of C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus, consul suffectus ca 197/198.

- Probably husband of a woman belonging to the gens Ovinia.

- Father of L. Caesonius Ovinius Manlius Rufinianus Bassus, consul suffectus ca 260,

consul II suffectus 284.

78

Name L. Caesonius Ovinius Manlius Rufinianus Bassus (PIR² C 212; PIR² O 186; PLRE I,

Bassus 18)

Cursus honorum - Triumvir capitalis after 235?, 240/245?

- Sevir turmae deducendae after 235?, 240/245?

- Quaestor candidatus

- Praetor candidatus

- Curator r p Beneventanorum before 260

- Consul suffectus ca 260

- Curator alvei Tiberis et cloacarum sacrae urbis

- Legatus proconsulis Africae dioeceseos Carthaginiensis (praetorian?)

- Curator coloniae Carthaginensium (praetorian?)

- Proconsul Africae tertium ca 275?

- Electus a divo Probo ad praesidendum iudicium magnum ca 276/282

- Iudex sacrarum cognitionum vice Caesaris sine appellatione cognoscens inter fiscum et

privates item inter privates Roma ca 276/281

- Iudex et in provincia Africa ca 281/2

- Comes Augg spring/summer 283?-285

- Praefectus urbi 295

- Pr[…]ones tracto Piceno

Notes - Son of L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, consul suffectus ?225/230.

- Father or grandfather of Caesonius Bassus, consul ordinarius 317.

- Connected to the Anicii.

A detailed diachronic summary of the political activities of the Caesonii with further references

can be found in section 2.2.

5. The Catii

Name P. Catius Sabinus (PIR² C 571)

Cursus honorum - Tribunus legionis XIII Geminae in Dacia37

- Praetor urbanus

- Legatus Augg pr pr Norici 206/9

- Consul suffectus 208/10

- Curator aedium sacrarum operumque publicorum 210

37

AE 1956, 204 = AE 2002, 01218 (Dacia).

79

- Consul II ordinarius 216 with P. Cornelius Anullinus (consul II)

Notes - Perhaps identical with the Sabinus whom Elagabalus ordered to have killed (HA, Vita

Elag. 16, 2-3).

- Probably ancestor (father or grandfather?) of C. Catius Clemens, consul suffectus circa

235, and of L. Catius Celer, consul suffectus circa 241.

Name [Catius? Lepi]dus I[---] (RE Suppl. 14, 88 s.v. Catius 9a)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus early 3rd

century?

Notes - May have been father of Sex Catius Clementinus Priscillianus, consul ordinarius 230,

and of Catius Clemens, consul suffectus circa 235.38

Name Sex. Catius Clementinus Priscillianus (PIR² C 564)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 230 with L. Virius Agricola

- Legatus Aug pr pr Germaniae Superioris 231

Notes - May have been a son of [Catius? Lepi]dus I[---], consul suffectus early 3rd

century.

- May have been brother of Catius Clemens, consul suffectus circa 235.

- May have been brother of L. Catius Celer, consul suffectus circa 241.

Name C. Catius Clemens (RE Suppl. 14, 88 s.v. Catius 6b)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus before 238, ca 235

- Legatus Aug pr pr Cappadociae ? 236/839

Notes - Probably descendant (son or grandson?) of P. Catius Sabinus, consul II ordinarius 216.

- May have been brother of Sex. Catius Clementinus Priscillianus, consul ordinarius 230.

- May have been brother of L. Catius Celer, consul suffectus circa 241.

Name L. Catius Celer (PIR² A 1350)

40

Cursus honorum - Legatus Aug pr pr Thraciae 238/241

- Consul suffectus (in absentia) ca 241

- Legatus Aug pr pr Moesiae Superioris 24241

38

AE 1948, 241 (Dalmatia) attests that this man was consul, (probably) husband of Publicia Quarta, and father of

Catia Maximina, C[lementina?], Clementinus, and Clemens. If this Clementinus and Clemens were identical with the

consul ordinarius 230, and consul suffectus circa 235, this [Catius? Lepi]dus I[---] probably held his consulship

about thirty years before theirs, circa AD 200. On this matter, see RE Suppl. 14, 88, s.v. Catius 9a, and Leunissen

(1989), 158f. In my opinion, the possibility that this [Catius? Lepi]dus may have been identical with P. Catius

Sabinus should not be excluded. 39

CIL 3.6924 (Cappadocia). This position was either carried out by him or by his older brother Sex. Catius

Clementinus Priscillianus. See Dietz (1980), 354. Eck (1985), 93, note 4, argues that it is more likely that Catius

Clemens held it. See also Leunissen (1989), 199, note 308. 40

His names used to be read erroneously as Q. Atius Celer. That is how he ended up in pars I of PIR². AE 1952, 191

(Moesia Superior), has shown that his name is Lucius Catius Celer. On this, see also RE Suppl. 14, 87, s.v. Catius 6. 41

See Dietz (190), 120-121.

80

Notes - Probably descendant (son or grandson?) of P. Catius Sabinus, consul II ordinarius 216.

- Probably related to (brother) Sex. Catius Clementinus Priscillianus, consul ordinarius

230.

- May have been brother of C. Catius Clemens, consul suffectus before 238.

Although the evidence on the Catii is far from clear and scholars have not reached total

agreement on their exact family ties, several members of the same branch seem to have held

consular positions from the beginning of the third century until the reign of Gordianus III. It has

been suggested that Catius Sabinus originated from northern-Italy or Gallia, although an

inscription indicates that the Catii owned property in Dalmatia as well. According to Dietz, the

third-century Catii descended from Cattius Severus, consul in the second century, and from

Catius Marcellus, consul suffectus in 153. Jacques suggests that they may even descend from

first-century senators.42

The first member of the gens to hold a consulship between AD 193 and 284 was Catius

Sabinus. He was suffect consul between 208 and 210. He held a second, ordinary, consulate in

216 with Publius Cornelius Anullinus as his colleague. This short interval may indicate that he

was a close supporter of Caracalla. In addition to a position as curator between the consulships,

no consular positions appear in our evidence for him.43

Catius Clementinus Priscillianus was consul ordinarius in 230, before he held a

governorship in Germania Superior. He was either Sabinus‟ son or the son of a [Catius? Lepi]dus

I[---], who was consularis and whose name can be deduced from the names of his children, who

set up an inscription in honor of him in Dalmatia.44

If he was indeed the father of Clementinus

and Catius Clemens, consul suffectus circa 235, this [Lepi]dus must have been consul suffectus

about AD 200.

Catius Celer was consul suffectus probably under Gordianus III, perhaps during his

governorship in Thracia. He held a consular governorship in Moesia Superior in 242. He seems to

42

On the origin of the Catii, see Alföldy (1968), 137-138. AE 1948, 241 (Dalmatia) points to landed property in that

province. On Cattius Severus and Catius Marcellus as ancestors of the third-century Catii, see Dietz (1980), 121-122;

355, who claims that L. Catius Celer descended from these men. On a potential descent from first-century senators,

see Jacques (1986), 99. 43

Christol (1986), 31, note 62, suggests that the consul of 208/10 and the consul of 216 may have been two different

individuals, who were father and son. For the suggestion that Sabinus was a loyal supporter of Caracalla, see DNP,

vol. 2, s.v. Catius [II 6]. 44

AE 1948, 241 (Dalmatia).

81

have been a descendant of Catius Sabinus and related to Clementinus and Clemens, and he was

the last member of the gens known to us who held a consulate between 193 and 284.45

6. The Claudii Pompeiani46

Name L. Aurel(l)ius Commodus Pompeianus (PIR² P 568)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 209 with Q. (Hedius) Lollianus Plautius Avitus

Notes - Son of Ti. Claudius Pompeianus (PIR² C 973), consul II ordinarius 173, or of Claudius

Pompeianus Quintianus (PIR² C 975), quaestorius who died in 182/3 and was son-in-law

of Lucilla Augusta.47

- May have been father of Claudius Pompeianus, consul ordinarius 231, and of L. Ti.

Claudius Aurelius Quintianus (Pompeianus?), consul ordinarius 235.

- Probably uncle of Clodius Pompeianus, consul ordinarius 241.

- May have been the Pompeianus who was executed by Caracalla in 211/2.48

Name (Ti. Claudius) Pompeianus (PIR² P 567; 569)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus 212

Notes - May have been son (or grandson?) of Ti. Claudius Pompeianus, consul II ordinarius

173.49

Name (Ti.) Claudius Pompeianus (PIR² C 972)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius with T. Flavius Sallustius Paelignianus 231

Notes - Son of L. Aurel(l)ius Commodus Pompeianus, consul ordinarius 209, and/or grandson of

(Ti. Claudius) Pompeianus, consul suffectus 212.50

- Related to (brother of?) L. Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus (Pompeianus?), consul

ordinarius 235.

- Related to (brother or cousin of?) Clodius Pompeianus, consul ordinarius 241.

45

On potential descendants of the third-century Catii in the fourth century, see Jacques (1986), 170. 46

For stemmata see PIR² P 568, pars 6, 248, no. 26; Dietz (1980), 374, stemma 3; and Settipani (2000), 302. See id.,

302, on the difficulties of establishing the relationships between the members of the gens and for further references. 47

On Commodus Pompeianus as the son of Ti. Claudius Pompeianus, general of Marcus Aurelius, see Leunissen

(1989), 372. On him as the son of Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus, see PIR² P 568. See also Settipani (2000), 301-

2. 48

Herodianus 4, 6, 3; HA, Vita Car., 3, 8; Leunissen (1989), 402. See also Dietz (1983), 389, with further references. 49

Dietz (1983), 390. 50

See stemma Settipani (2000), 302. Leunissen (1989), 374, assumes he was the son of Aurel(l)ius Commodus

Pompeianus, consul ordinarius 209.

82

Name L. Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus (Pompeianus?) (PIR² C 992)

Cursus honorum - Triumvir monetalis 221/3

- Quaestor candidatus 228

- Praetor 233

- Consul ordinarius with Cn. Claudius Severus 23551

Notes - Related to (son of?) L. Aurel(l)ius Commodus Pompeianus, consul ordinarius 209.

- Related to (Ti. Claudius) Pompeianus, consul suffectus 212.52

- Related to (brother or cousin of?) Claudius Pompeianus, consul ordinarius 231.

- Related to (cousin of?) Clodius Pompeianus, consul ordinarius 241.

Name Clodius Pompeianus (PIR² C 1177; P 570)

Cursus honorum - Quaestor ? 234?

- Praetor ? 239?

- Consul ordinarius 241 with the emperor Gordianus III

- Curator aedium sacrarum 24453

Notes - Related to (brother or cousin of?) (Ti.) Claudius Pompeianus, consul ordinarius 231.

The third-century Claudii Pompeiani descended from Ti. Claudius Pompeianus, an important

general of Syrian origin under Marcus Aurelius and consul II ordinarius in 173, and Lucilla,

Marcus Aurelius‟ daughter Lucius Verus‟ widow.54

According to the Historia Augusta, Claudius

Pompeianus was the son of an eques and thus the first member of this family to enter the senate.55

During the reign of Commodus, no member of the gens held a consulship, though Claudius

Pompeianus Quintianus, probably the general‟s nephew and certainly married to the daughter of

Lucilla, was quaestor. He was killed in 182 after plotting against Commodus.56

Although the exact family ties have been disputed, it is clear that several consular men

between AD 193 and 284 belonged to this gens.57

First of all, Aurel(l)ius Commodus

51

These dates are based on Leunissen (1989), 378. 52

According to Leunissen (1989), 374, L. Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus may have been Ti. Claudius

Pompeianus‟ son. PIR² P 567; 569, however, suggests that the consul suffectus of 212 was his uncle. 53

These dates are based on Dietz (1980), 128; 355. 54

Claudius Pompeianus originated from Antiocheia ad Orontem (Syria). HA, Vita Marc. 20,6: „… filiam suam […]

grandaevo equitis Romani filio Claudio Pompeiano dedit genere Antiochensi…’ („he married his daughter to

Claudius Pompeianus, the son of a Roman knight, and now advanced in years, a native of Antioch…‟) On his origin,

see also Leunissen (1989), 368; Halfmann (1979), 181-182, no. 103; 200-201, no. 135; Bowersock (1982), 664;

Dietz (1983), 389. 55

HA, Vita Marc. 20, 6. 56

On Quintianus, see Dio 73, 4, 4; Herodianus 1, 8, 4-5. 57

See Settipani (2000), 302, on the difficulties with establishing the exact family ties between the third-century

Claudii Pompeiani and for further references. Cf. Dietz (1980), 125, note 334.

83

Pompeianus, who was consul ordinarius in 209, and Pompeianus, suffectus in 212.

Unfortunately, nothing is known about their further careers. The next generation flourished under

Severus Alexander: Claudius Pompeianus was consul ordinarius in 231 and Claudius Aurelius

Quintianus (Pompeianus?) in 235. The fact that the latter was quaestor candidatus indicates that

the gens had become patrician by that time.58

Clodius Pompeianus, the last known descendant of

this consular family, held the consulship in 241.

That the gens Claudia Pompeiana was a significant senatorial family in the third century

can be inferred from their influential colleagues. Aurel(l)ius Commodus Pompeianus‟ colleague

in 209 was Lollianus Plautius Avitus, member of the gens Hedia Lolliana. The colleagues of the

Pompeiani in 212 and 235 seem to have been members of the gens Claudia Severa, descendants

of another general of Marcus Aurelius who was married to another daughter of the emperor. The

gens Claudia Pompeiana and the gens Claudia Severa thus both descended from Marcus

Aurelius. The colleague of Claudius Pompeianus in 231, Titus Flavius Sallustius Paelignianus,

was probably from an Italic patrician family.59

Clodius Pompeianus‟ colleague in 241 was the

emperor Gordianus.

There may have been further descendants of this general of Marcus Aurelius, but they did

not find their way into the consular fasti. It is striking that family disappears from the sources not

long after the end of the Severan dynasty.

7. The Claudii Severi60

Name Ti. Claudius Severus Proculus (PIR² C 1028)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 200 with C. Aufidius Victorinus

Notes - Son of Cn. Claudius Severus (PIR² C 1024), consul II ordinarius 173, and of a daughter

of Marcus Aurelius.

- Related to (father of?) Cn. Claudius Severus, consul ordinarius 235.

Name (Cn.? Claudius?) Severus (PIR² S 634)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus 212?

- Praefectus urbi ?? 22361

58

Leunissen (1989), 35, insists that Claudius Aurelius Quintianus was a patricius. Cf. PIR² C 992 Jacques (1986),

122-3, however, does not mention the Claudii Pompeiani among the patrician gentes. 59

Leunissen (1989), 109 and 360 with further references. 60

For stemmata, see PIR², vol. I, 130, and Dietz (1980), 374, stemma 3.

84

Notes - Related to (son of?) Claudius Severus Proculus, consul ordinarius 200, and to (brother

of?) Claudius Severus, consul ordinarius 235.62

Name Cn. Claudius Severus (PIR² C 1025)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 235

Notes - Probably son (or grandson?) of Ti. Claudius Severus Proculus, consul ordinarius 200.63

- Brother of Annia Aurelia Faustina, third wife of emperor Elagabalus.64

The Claudii Severi descended from Claudius Severus (PIR² C 1023), a member of the local elite

of Pompeiopolis (Galatia) who was admitted into the senate late first or early second century AD

and held a suffect consulate in 112. His son Claudius Severus Arabianus was consul ordinarius in

146 and one of Marcus Aurelius‟ partners in philosophical discussions.65

The former fathered

Gnaius Claudius Severus, one of Marcus Aurelius‟ loyal commanders, who married a daughter of

the emperor and was consul II ordinarius in 173 with Claudius Pompeianus as his colleague.

The gens Claudia Severa provided three consular men in the first half of the third century:

Claudius Severus Proculus in 200, (Claudius) Severus in 212, and Claudius Severus in 235.

Claudius Severus Proculus‟ colleague was Gaius Aufidius Victorinus, who was a member of the

Italic gens Aufidia, which was influential in the second half of the second century AD.66

The

other two shared their consulships with members of the gens Claudia Pompeiana. There are no

indications that the Claudii Severi reached patrician status like the Claudii Pompeiani did.

Although the consular fasti mention no member of the Claudii Severi after 235, the family

seemed to have remained members in the senate until at least the reign of Diocletian, when a vir

clarissimus called Tiberius Claudius Severus set up a dedication to the emperor.67

61

Cod. Iust. 4, 56, 2, attests a Severus as praefectus urbi in 223. Leunissen (1989), 176, note 211, suggests that the

city prefect may have been identical with the Severus who was consul suffectus circa 212. 62

Leunissen (1989), 374, has suggested that he was the father of Cn. Claudius Severus, consul ordinarius 235, but

more scholars accept that he was the son of Claudius Severus Proculus and thus brother of Claudius Severus. 63

Leunissen (1989), 374, suggests that he was the son of (Cn. Claudius) Severus, consul suffectus 212. 64

Dietz (1980), 128. 65

Fronto addressed Ad amicos 1, 1, to him. Birley (1987), 95f. Cf. HA, Vita Marc. 3, 3. 66

He was the son of C. Aufidius Victorinus, consul II ordinarius in 183, and brother of M. Aufidius Fronto, consul

ordinarius 199. The family originated from Pisaurum (Umbria). See Leunissen (1989), 357 and 372. 67

CIL 6.1119a (Roma), which is dated between 293 and 295. See PIR² C 1026; PLRE I, Severus 22.

85

8. The Egnatii68

Name (L.) Egnatius Victor (PIR² E 35)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus before 207

- Legatus Augg pr pr Pannoniae Superioris 207

Notes - May have been related to M. Egnatius Postumus (PIR² E 26), consul suffectus 183.69

- May have been related to (brother or cousin?) the Egnatii Proculi, consules suffecti late

2nd

/early 3rd

century.70

- Married a sister of Lollianus Plautius Avitus, consul ordinarius 209, and of (Hedius)

Terentius Gentianus, consul ordinarius 211.71

- Probably father of L. Egnatius Victor Lollianus, consul suffectus ca 225/230, of (Egnatia)

Mariniana, and perhaps also of Egnatius Victor Marinianus, consul suffectus ca 230.72

Name A. Egnatius Proculus (PIR² E 30)

Cursus honorum - Legatus Aug Africae dioeces(eos) Numidiae

- Legatus legionis VIII Aug. Piae Fidelis in Germania Superior

- Praefectus frumenti dandi

- Praefectus aerarii Saturni

- Consul suffectus late 2nd

/early 3rd

century

- Curator Bovianensium, Albensium Fucentium, Concordiensium

Notes - May have been related (brother or cousin?) to Egnatius Victor, consul suffectus before

207.

- Possibly brother of Q. Egnatius Proculus.73

Name Q. Egnatius Proculus (PIR² E 29; 31)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus late 2nd

/early 3rd

century74

- Legatus Aug consularis ad corrigendum statum liberarum civitatium provinciae Achaiae

Notes - May have been related (brother or cousin?) to Egnatius Victor, consul suffectus before

207.

- Possibly brother of A. Egnatius Proculus.

68

Stemmata can be found in Dietz (1980), stemma 7 and Settipani (2000), 398-400. The exact family ties, however,

are disputed. 69

Leunissen (1989), 355 with further references. 70

Dietz (1980), stemma 7. Cf. Settipani (2000), 397-399. 71

Settipani (2000), 406-407. 72

Leunissen (1989), 374; Settipani (2000), 399. 73

According to PIR² E 30 it is unlikely that they were the same man; Chausson has made a suggestion on their

relation. See Settipani (2000), 398-399, with further references. However, as far as I can determine, this assumption

is not supported by any evidence. 74

According to Settipani (2000), 398-399, he was consul suffectus in 219.

86

- Seems to have been the son-in-law of L. Marius Perpetuus, consul suffectus ca 203, or of

Marius Perpetuus, consul ordinarius 237.75

Name L. Egnatius Victor Lollianus (PIR² E 36)

Cursus honorum - Legatus Aug pr pr Galatiae 21876

- Consul suffectus ca 225/230

- Corrector Achaiae ca 230

- Legatus Aug pr pr Bithyniae et Ponti 230/235

- Legatus Aug pr pr Pannoniae Inferioris ?? 222/23577

- Proconsul Asiae ter 242/24778

- Praefectus urbi 254

Notes - Probably son of (L.) Egnatius Victor, consul suffectus before 207.

- Probably brother of Egnatius Victor Marinianus, consul suffectus ca 230, and of (Egnatia)

Mariniana Augusta, wife of Valerianus.

- May have been related to Egnatius Lucilianus (PIR² E 23), consul suffectus before 238,

legatus Augusti pr pr Britanniae (Inferioris) under Gordianus III.79

Name Egnatius Victor Marinianus (PIR² E 25; 37)

Cursus honorum - Legatus Aug pr pr Arabiae before 230?

- Consul suffectus ca 230

- Legatus Aug pr pr Moesiae Superioris ca 230?80

Notes - Probably son of (L.) Egnatius Victor, consul suffectus before 207.

- Probably brother Egnatius Victor Lollianus, consul suffectus ca 225/230, and of (Egnatia)

75

Although it seems likely, it is not entirely certain whether Egnatius Proculus (PIR² E 29), legatus Augusti in

Achaiae and Q. Egnatius Proculus (PIR² E 31), consul suffectus at an uncertain date, are identical. If not, Q. Egnatius

Proculus may have been suffectus later and son-in-law of Marius Perpetuus, ordinarius in 237. This has been

suggested by Dietz (1980), 189, and Settipani (2000), 399, who date Proculus‟ consulate after 260. 76

The dates of all these positions are based on Leunissen (1989), passim. 77

According to Fitz, who based this on very fragmentary remains. Quoted in Leunissen (1989), 210; 257. 78

Leunissen (1989), 185, suggests that he may have been sent there by Gordianus III extra sortem in connection with

the campaign against the Persians and that he was allowed to retain the position under Philippus. Körner (2002), 200,

points out that his retention of the office indicates immediate support on his part for Philippus as new emperor. 79

According to Dietz (1980), 357. From CIL 7.445; 1030, we learn that Egnatius Lucilianus was governor of

Britannia during the reign of Gordianus. It may be assumed that he previously held a consulship. It has been

suggested (see PIR² E 23) that this Egnatius Lucilianus may have been the father of Lucillus, consul ordinarius 265

with Gallienus‟ brother or son Valerianus as his colleague. According to HA, Vita Gall. 12, 1, this Lucillus was

related to Gallienus. Jacques (1986), 178-179, however, asserts that a relation between the Egnatii and Egnatius

Lucilianus, legatus Britanniae inferioris 238/244 is very doubtful. 80

Leunissen (1989), 186, note 250, points out that this date, which was suggested by Stein, was based on the

assumption that Egnatius (Victor) Marinianus was the father-in-law of Valerianus. Christol (1986), 191, however,

has demonstrated that it is more likely that Egnatia Mariniana was Marinianus‟ sister. In that case, Marinianus‟

governorship of Moesia Superior should probably be dated later.

87

Mariniana.81

- Brother of L. Egnatius Victor Lollianus, consul suffectus ca 225/230.

- May have been related to C. Luxilius Sabinus Egnatius Proculus (PIR² L 452), who was

tribunus laticlavius legionis IIII Flaviae during the reign of Severus Alexander (perhaps

under Egnatius Marinianus when he was governor of Moesia Superior) - quaestor pr pr

provinciae Cretae Cyrenarum - aedilis Cerialis - praetor - legatus provinciae Achaiae -

curator viarum et praefectus alimentorum Clodiae et coherentium - iuridicus regionis

Transpadanae - legatus decimae geminae Gordianae 238/244 - curator rerum publicarum

Pisaurensium et Fanestrium.82

Name (Licinius Egnatius) Marinianus (PIR² L 198/PLRE I, Marinianus 1)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 268 with (Aspasius?) Paternus

Notes - Probably descended from (great-grandson of?) Egnatius Victor Marinianus, consul

suffectus ca 230. Perhaps he was the son of a brother or sister of emperor Gallienus, or

the youngest son of Gallienus himself.83

- Killed at the end of the reign of Gallienus.84

The Egnatii probably had Etruscan origins, although Bithynian or Numidian origins have also

been suggested.85

Members of the gens Egnatia first appear in the consular fasti late second, early

third century AD.

Egnatius Victor held a consulate in 207. Egnatius Victor Lollianus, consul suffectus ca

225/230, and Egnatius Victor Marinianus, consul suffectus ca 230, were probably his sons, and

presumably he had a daughter (Egnatia) Mariniana, who would marry the future emperor Licinius

Valerianus. Valerianus, who seems to have been a supporter of the Gordiani, might have

convinced his brother-in-law Egnatius Victor Lollianus to support them as well. In any case, it is

striking that the summit of Lollianus‟ career was reached at the end of the reign of Gordianus III,

when he held the position of governor of Africa for three years. That members of the gens

81

Dietz (1980), 152, follows PIR² E 37 in suggesting that this man was Valerianus‟ father-in-law. More recently,

however, the assumption that Mariniana was a daughter of Egnatius Victor, legatus of Pannonia superior in 207,

instead of a daughter of Egnatius Victor Marinianus, has become the accepted notion. See Christol (1986), 191. Cf.

Leunissen (1989), 186, note 250. 82

According to Petersen, PIR² L 452, followed by Dietz (1980), 183f., and most recently by Settipani (2000), 397-

399. Petersen suggests that this Luxilius Sabinus Egnatius Proculus was related by marriage to the Egnatii Proculi

(PIR² E 29-33), who had consular careers during the reigns of the Severi. 83

See PIR² L 198; Christol (1986), 109. 84

Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 31; Zonaras 12, 26. 85

On their origins, see Dietz (1980), 356; Jacques (1986), 178; Leunissen (1989), 358 and 360; Körner (2002), 191

and 338.

88

Egnatia continued to hold consular positions during the reigns of Valerianus and Gallienus is of

course not surprising. Egnatius Victor Lollianus was city prefect in 254, and Marinianus was

consul ordinarius in 268 with a colleague named Paternus, whose identity cannot be determined.

That no member of the gens Egnatia held consular positions in the period 268 to 284 is even less

surprising, as the family was related to Gallienus. Most members of the gens were probably killed

with the emperor, or at least lost their wealth and status.

The Egnatii were connected to the Hedii Lolliani through marriage. It has also been suggested

that the Egnatii Victores were related to the Egnatii Proculi, who underwent consular careers

under the Severi and were related through marriage to the Marii.86

In the fourth century, the

Egnatii appear in the consular fasti again, by which time they may have established relations with

the Acilii as well.87

9. The Fulvii Aemiliani

Name Fulvius Gavius (Numisius) Petronius Aemilianus (PIR² F 528)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 206 with M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus

Notes - Perhaps father of Fulvius Aemilianus, consul ordinarius 244, and of Fulvius Aemilianus,

consul II ordinarius 249.88

Name L. Fulvius Gavius N[umisius …] Aemilianus (PIR² F 540)

Cursus honorum - (Quaestor candidatus?)

- Praetor candidatus

- Electus ad [dilectum habendum?] per regionem Transpadanam after 222

- Consul suffectus 223/235; 226 or 229?89

- Consul II ordinarius ?? 24990

- Praefectus urbi ?? 24991

86

Based on an unpublished inscription, Jacques (1986), 178-179, suggests relations between Valerianus and Egnatius

Certus Settianus, who was attested in Beneventum in 254 (RE Suppl. 14, 115, no. 17a). This Egnatius was probably

the son of C. Egnatius Certus (PIR² E 20), consul suffectus in the first half of the third century. According to Jacques,

however, these Egnatii Certi probably belonged to a separate but related branch of Egnatii from Beneventum. 87

According to Jacques (1986), 178-179. 88

Leunissen (1989), 374; Körner (2002), 338. 89

The date is based on Leunissen (1989), 187-188. 90

It is possible that it was his younger brother Fulvius Aemilianus, consul ordinarius 244, who held this second

consulship in 249, but that would leave a very short interval between the two consulates. That is why nowadays it is

assumed that this consulship was held by this Fulvius Aemilianus, who had been suffectus under Severus Alexander.

See Leunissen (1989), 187, note 257 for further references.

89

Notes - Perhaps son of Fulvius Aemilianus, consul ordinarius 206.

- Perhaps older brother of Fulvius Aemilianus, consul ordinarius 244.

Name L. Fulvius Gavius Numisius Aemilianus (PIR² F 529)

Cursus honorum - Quaestor 237

- Consul ordinarius 244

Notes - Perhaps son of F. Gavius (Numisius) Petronius Aemilianus, consul ordinarius 206.

- Perhaps brother of F. Fulvius Gavius N[umius] Aemilianus, consul suffectus 222/235.

It is hard to determine when the Fulvii Aemiliani, who seem to have had been of Italian origin,

entered the senate.92

Lucius Fulvius Rusticus Aemilianus (PIR² F 557) was consul suffectus in the

second century and probably the father of Lucius Fulvius Gavius Numisius Petronius Aemilianus

(PIR² F 541) who was quaestor candidatus and not much later praetor tutelarius candidatus,

probably in 169, appointed by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. By that time, the family seems

to have had patrician status.93

The first consular member between AD 193 and 284 was Fulvius Gavius (Numisius)

Petronius Aemilianus who was consul ordinarius in 206. He was probably the son of the praetor

tutelarius of 169 and seems to have been the father of the Fulvius Aemilianus, consul suffectus

under Severus Alexander and consul iterum in 249, and of Fulvius Aemilianus, consul ordinarius

in 244.94

Their consular colleagues were all successful senators: the other consul ordinarius in

206 was Marcus Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus, member of the patrician gens

Nummia, which will be discussed below. In 244, the second consul ordinarius was Tiberius

Pollenius Armenius Peregrinus who was adopted into the gens Pollenia, and then in 249, Lucius

Naevius Aquilinus, who would hold the position of governor of Africa under Gallienus, became

Fulvius Aemilianus‟ colleague.

It has been suggested that the gens Fulvia Aemiliana had been related to the Bruttii since

the first century AD and that the gens also had connections with the Nummii Umbrii.95

Laelius

91

See Dietz (1980), 165, with further references. 92

On their origins, see Dietz (1980), 356; Leunissen (1989), 358; 360; Körner (2002), 338. 93

On their patrician status, see Dietz (1980), 160; Leunissen (1989), 35; Körner (2002), 338. Jacques (1986), 122-3,

does not include the Fulvii in his list of patrician families. 94

The city prefect Fulvius mentioned by Dio 80, 21, 1-2, who was killed in 222 immediately after the death of

Elagabalus, may also have been related to this gens, but there are other possibilities. Leunissen (1989) 166, note 167,

for example, assumes that the city prefect was identical to C. Fulvius Maximus, consul suffectus before 210. 95

On this matter, see Dietz (1980), 161-163, with further references. The posited connection with the Bruttii is based

on the nomenclature of L. Fulvius … C. Bruttius Praesens (PIR² B 165), consul 153, consul II ordinarius 180.

90

(Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus, consul ordinarius in 227, may have been distantly related as

well.96

After 249, no member of the gens Fulvia can be traced in the consular fasti, although it

has been suggested that Aemilianus, consul II ordinarius in 276, belonged to this gens.97

Yet

such a connection cannot be established with certainty.

10. The Hedii Lolliani98

Name Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus (PIR² H 42)

Cursus honorum - Triumvir monetalis (triumvir auro argento aere flando feriundo)

- Tribunus (militum) legionis VII Geminae piae felicis

- Quaestor candidatus

- Praetor candidatus

- Legatus legionis XXII Primigeniae ca 184

- Consul suffectus ca 186/188

- (Curator rei publicae Puteolanorum et Veliternorum??)

- Legatus Augusti pro praetore Hispaniae citerioris (item censitor Hispaniae citerioris??)

?189-?192

- Comes Severi et Antonini Augustorum ter 194/197

- Censitor provinciae Lugdunensis 197/?198

- (Censitor Hispaniae citerioris??) ?198/199

- Proconsul Asiae 201/20299

Notes - Grandson of L. (Hedius Rufus) Lollianus Avitus (PIR² H 39), consul suffectus 114, and

proconsul Asiae 128/129.

- Son of L. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus (PIR² H 40), consul ordinarius 144.100

- Brother of L. Hedius Rufus Lollianus (PIR² H 41), consul suffectus and proconsul Asiae

probably before 193.

- Father of Q. (Hedius) Lollianus Plautius Avitus, consul ordinarius 209; of (Hedius

Lollianus) Terentius Gentianus, consul ordinarius 211; and of (Hedia) Terentia Flavola

96

According to Settipani (2000), 152, Laelius (Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus was the grandson of a sister of

Fulvius Gavius Aemilianus, praetor 169. Alföldy (1982), 363, also mentions close ties („enge Beziehungen‟)

between the Laelii Maximi and the Fulvii. 97

See Dietz (1980), 368, stemma 4. 98

A stemma is in PIR², pars IV, fasc. 2, 52 and Settipani (2000), 407. On (members of) the family, see also Christol

(1981); Alföldy (1982), 326 no. 5; Guidanti (1995). 99

These dates are based on Christol (1981). 100

L. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus was consul ordinarius in 144, curator operum publicorum 146, proconsul

Africae probably 157/158, legatus Augg pro praetore Bithyniae (et Ponti) 159. He was probably assigned a special

task when Verus left the East. Furthermore, he was an orator, amicus of Fronto, and patronus of Helvius Successus,

Pertinax‟ father. He was married to a daughter of Terentius Gentianus, consul suffectus 116.

91

(PIR² H 44), virgo Vestalis maxima. He had another son (PIR² H 34) who probably died ca

209/210.

- Patronus of Pertinax.101

Name Q. (Hedius) Lollianus Plautius Avitus (PIR² H 36)

Cursus honorum - Triumvir monetalis auro argento aere flando feriundo

- Tribunus laticlavius legionis XIII Geminae in Dacia

- Quaestor candidatus 195?

- Praetor candidatus tutelaris 200

- Legatus Augg provinciae Asiae 201/202

- Iuridicus Asturiae et Callaeciae

- Legatus legionis VII Geminae piae fidelis in

Hispania Citerior 202-?205

- Consul ordinarius with Aurel(l)ius Commodus Pompeianus 209

- Proconsul Asiae ca 224?102

Notes - Son of Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, consul suffectus ca 186/188.

- Brother of (Hedius Lollianus) Terentius Gentianus, consul ordinarius 211.

Name (Hedius Lollianus) Terentius Gentianus (PIR² H 37)

Cursus honorum - Praetor tutelaris 209

- Consul ordinarius with (Pomponius) Bassus 211

Notes - Son of Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, consul suffectus ca 186/188.

- Brother of Q. (Hedius) Lollianus Plautius Avitus, consul ordinarius 209.

- Married to Pomponia Paetina, who seems to have been related to (Pomponius) Bassus,

Terentius‟ consular colleague in 211.103

The gens Hedia Lolliana, which was probably from Liguria (Italy), occurs as consular family

during the second century and the beginning of the third century AD.104

The third-century Hedii

Lolliani were descendants of Lucius (Hedius) Lollianus Avitus, consul suffectus in AD 114. His

son, Lucius Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus, was consul ordinarius exactly thirty years later: AD

144. It was probably this man, who dared criticize Pertinax for breaking a promise, according to

101

According to PIR² H 42, basing this on the fact that his father was Pertinax‟ father‟s patronus. 102

The dates are based on Leunissen (1989), passim. 103

According to PIR² H 37 and P 707, the name of C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus, consul suffectus circa 193,

appears to indicate that the gentes were united at the end of the second century AD. 104

The gens had properties in Liguria, where Pertinax was born as well. On the geographical origin of the gens, see

Leunissen (1989), 356.

92

the Historia Augusta.105

Even if the incident was made up, the suggestion that a Lollianus could

do this demonstrates that the gens was powerful at the end of the second century AD.

Between AD 193 and 284 consular positions were held by several members of the gens.

First of all, Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, who was consul suffectus circa 186/188. He

joined the emperor‟s entourage thrice during the early years of the reign of Septimius Severus,

after which he held several positions as censitor and eventually became governor of Asia.106

Considering the fact that he was both quaestor and praetor as imperial candidatus, the gens must

have reached patrician status by that time. Gentianus‟ older brother, Lucius Hedius Rufus

Lollianus (PIR² H 41), was consul suffectus and proconsul Asiae as well, but he may have held

these positions before 193 and there is no evidence that his career continued during the reign of

Severus. Lollianus Plautius Avitus, son of Gentianus, held an ordinary consulship at the end of

the reign of Severus and, like his father, was proconsul Asiae, probably shortly after Severus

Alexander became emperor. His colleague, Aurel(l)ius Commodus Pompeianus, was a member

of the gens Claudia Pompeiana, and his brother, Terentius Gentianus, was consul ordinarius in

211 with (Pomponius) Bassus as his colleague, who may have been a relative.107

The sister of the consuls of 209 and 211 married Egnatius Victor. Their daughter,

(Egnatia) Mariniana, would marry the future emperor Valerianus, while their son, Lucius

Egnatius Victor Lollianus, held a suffect consulship in 225 and seems to have been the last consul

bearing the name Lollianus.108

105

HA, Vita Pert. 7, 6. 106

He can only have been comes thrice at the beginning of Septimius Severus‟ reign, in the expedition against Niger

(expeditio Asiana), the first Parthian War, and against Albinus (expeditio Gallica). Birley (1988), 76, suggests that

Septimius Severus and Lollianus Gentianus may have met when Severus was governor of Lugdunensis and Lollianus

Gentianus was on his way from Rome to Moguntiacum to take up his position as commander of legion XXII

Primigenia. There is no evidence that they actually met then and there, but it is very unlikely that Septimius Severus

did not know him, or at least his father, who was one of the more senior senators in those days. 107

(Pomponius) Bassus, the consul ordinarius in 211, may have been the son of [C. Pomponius] Bass[us

Terentianus], consul suffectus circa 193, but since their names were not preserved completely, this is hypothetical.

For this suggestion and further references, see Leunissen (1989), 357, note 26. 108

Two more male Hedii Lolliani of next generations are known to us: (Q. Hedius) Lollianus Gentianus, probably a

nephew of (Hedius) Terentius Gentianus, consul ordinarius 211, and Q. (Hedius) Terentius Rufus. Although

apparently they were senators, since they were called vir clarissimus, they do not appear in the consular fasti.

93

11. The Marii109

Name L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus (PIR² M 308)

Cursus honorum - Quattuorvir viarum curandarum under Marcus Aurelius110

- Tribunus laticlavius legionis XXII Primigeniae

- Tribunus laticlavius legionis III Italicae 178/180

- Quaestor urbanus ?182/183

- Tribunus plebis candidatus

- Adlectus inter praetorios

- Curator viae Latinae ca 190

- Curator rei publicae Faventinorum N-Italy

- Legatus legionis I Italicae ca 193

- Dux exercitus Mysiaci (=Moesiaci) apud Byzantium 193/196

- Dux exercitus Mysiaci apud Lugdunum 197

- Legatus Augustorum pro praetore Belgicae 197-?199

- Consul suffectus ca 199/200111

- Legatus Augusti pr pr Germaniae Inferioris

- Legatus Augg pr pr Syriae Coelis ?205-?208

- Proconsul Africae ?213/214 or ?216/217

- Proconsul Asiae II 214-216 or 213-215112

- Praefectus urbi 218-219

- Consul II ordinarius 223 with L. Roscius Aelianus Paculus Salvius Iulianus

- (Curator Ardeatinorum ??)

Notes - Son of equestrian procurator L. Marius Perpetuus (PIR² M 313).113

- Brother of L. Marius Perpetuus, consul suffectus ca 203?

- Father of L. Marius Maximus, consul ordinarius 232.

- Related to (father/uncle of?) L. Marius Perpetuus, consul ordinarius 237.

- Author of the lives of emperors from Nerva until Elagabalus.114

109

Stemmata can be found in PIR², pars V, fasc. 2, 205; Dietz (1980), stemma 7; Settipani (2000), 399. 110

His career is rendered completely in CIL 6.1450 = ILS 2935 (Roma). On his career, see also Birley (1997b), esp.

2694-2703. The dates are based on Leunissen (1989), 382. 111

Probably during his service as governor of Belgica. See Leunissen (1989), 284. 112

Both that he held this position for two consecutive years and that he was both proconsul Africae and proconsul

Asiae were highly unusual. On this, see Leunissen (1989), 217 and 224-5. See Thomasson (1996), 85 about the

problem of dating and deciding which proconsulship was first. 113

Leunissen (1989), 48. L. Marius Perpetuus was procurator monetae, procurator vicesimae hereditatium,

procurator stationis hereditatium and procurator provinciae Lugdunensis et Aquitaniae. He was a protégé of Gavius

Maximus, praefectus praetorio under Antoninus Pius. 114

HA, Vita Elag. 11,6.

94

Name L. Marius Perpetuus (PIR² M 311)

Cursus honorum - (Vigintivir?)115

- Tribunus laticlavius legionis IV Scythicae in Syria

- Quaestor candidatus Augusti

- (Tribunus plebis/aedilis?)

- (Praetor?)

- (Adlectio inter praetorios?)

- Legatus legionis XVI Flaviae firmae in Syria Coele under governor Alfenus Senecio 200

or ca 203

- Legatus (praeses) Augg pr pr Arabiae ca 200/207

- Consul suffectus ca 203? or 208? or 214?

- Curator rerum publicarum Urbisalviensium (in Piceno) item Tusculanorum 204/211?116

- Legatus Aug pr pr Moesiae superioris 211-214?, or 208-211?

- Legatus Aug pr pr Tres Daciae 214?-215/216, or 211-214 (the latter according to PIR117

- Proconsul (Africae/Asiae??) ca 218/219?118

Notes - Son of equestrian procurator L. Marius Perpetuus (PIR² M 313).

- Brother of L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, consul II ordinarius 223.

- Uncle of L. Marius Maximus, consul ordinarius 232.

- Related to (father/uncle of?) L. Marius Perpetuus, consul ordinarius 237.

Name L. Marius Maximus (PIR² M 307)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius with Virius Lupus (Iulianus?) 232

Notes - Son of L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, consul II ordinarius 223.

- Brother or cousin of L. Marius Perpetuus, consul ordinarius 237.

Name L. Marius Perpetuus (PIR² M 312)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 237 with L. Mummius Felix Cornelianus

Notes - Son or nephew of L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, consul II ordinarius 223.

- Son or nephew of L. Marius Perpetuus, consul suffectus ca 203?

- Brother or cousin of L. Marius Maximus, consul ordinarius 232.

- Perhaps brother-in-law of Egnatius Proculus, consul suffectus late 2nd

/early 3rd

century.119

115

The dates of many positions are disputed. Those mentioned here are based mainly on Leunissen (1989), 379, and

Thomasson (1985), 125-126. Cf. PIR² M 312. 116

According to PIR² M 312, the consulship was held after his curatorships in Italy. 117

CIL 3.1178 = ILS 1165 (Dacia) points at judicial duties in Dacia („praeses iustissimus‟). 118

Based on CIL 6.41188 = AE 1987, no. 69 (Roma). See Leunissen (1989), 228. 119

See Dietz (1980), stemma 7.

95

The gens Maria probably had its origins either in Italy or in Africa.120 In the second century the

family had equestrian status. Apparently, procurator Marius Perpetuus secured entry into the

senatorial order for his sons.

At the beginning of the reign of Septimius Severus, Marius Maximus, probably the elder

son, was able to extend the status of the family due to loyal service as dux of the new emperor

during the civil wars. The gens having become part of the high nobility. General Marius

Maximus was rewarded with a suffect consulate soon after the wars, circa 199/200. His brother

Marius Perpetuus was also appointed consul suffectus, although it has been disputed whether his

consulship was held under Severus, soon after his brother‟s, or under Caracalla. While most of

the consular part of Perpetuus‟ career seems to have taken place under Severus‟ son, Marius

Maximus‟ consular career covered the reigns of all the Severi, up to the beginning of the reign of

Severus Alexander. That Marius Maximus was made proconsul of both Africa and Asia under

Caracalla, and that he even served a double term in the latter, was unprecedented, and suggests

that the emperor held him in high regard. Apparently, this did not prevent Caracalla‟s successor

Macrinus from appointing him city prefect in 218, as successor of Oclatinius Adventus. During

the reign of Elagabalus, Marius Maximus disappeared from public view, but he reappeared as

consul iterum as colleague of Lucius Roscius Aelianus Paculus Salvius Iulianus, the son of

Roscius Aelianus Paculus, consul ordinarius in 187, and the stepson of Marcus Nummius

Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus, consul ordinarius in 206.121

Another Marius Maximus, probably the son of the consul iterum of 223, held an ordinary

consulate in 232 with Virius Lupus (Iulianus?) as his colleague, a member of the gens Viria.

Marius Perpetuus, another member of this gens, was consul ordinarius in 237 under Maximinus

Thrax. His colleague, Lucius Mummius Felix Cornelianus, seems to have been related to the

patrician Lucius Mummius Maxi[mus] Fa[us]tinianus, and to Mummius Bassus, consul

ordinarius in 258.122 Unfortunately, nothing is known about the further careers of these last two

Marii.

120

On their origins, see Dietz (1980), 358; Leunissen (1989), 362-364. 121

Leunissen (1989), 373. 122

Dietz (1980), 191.

96

After 237, the gens seems to have disappeared completely from the consular fasti. The Marii

were connected to the Egnatii (Proculi) through marriage.123

12. The Nummii124

Name M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus (PIR² N 238)

Cursus honorum - Triumvir monetalis (auro argento aere flando feriundo)125

- Sevir equitum Romanorum turmae primae

- Curator Cart(aginensium)

- Quaestor candidatus Augg ca 199

- Legatus (proconsulis) Asiae and/or Africae? ca 202, or 208/209?126

- Praetor candidatus Augg ca 204

- Consul ordinarius with Fulvius Aemilianus 206

- Electus ab Augustis ad cognoscendum vice sacra 208/209?

- Legatus Augg/Aug pr pr Hispaniae Citerioris 209?/211-212?

- Legatus Augg pr pr Dalmatiae 212?-214?

- Proconsul Asiae?? ca 221/222127

Notes - Probably the son of Nummius Albinus (PIR² N 226), (half-)brother of Didius Iulianus,

and adopted son of M. Umbrius Primus (PIR V 596), proconsul Africae ca 201/202.128

- Father of M. Umbrius Primus, consul ordinarius 227.

Name M. Nummius Senecio Albinus (PIR² N 235)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 227 with Laelius (Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus

Notes - Son of M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus, consul ordinarius 206.

123

Maria Aurelia(na) Violentilla (PIR² M 325), probably daughter of Perpetuus, consul ordinarius 237, married Q.

Egnatius Proculus (PIR² E 31), consul suffectus at an uncertain date . See Dietz (1980), 189; Settipani (2000), 399. 124

For stemmata, see PLRE I, 1142, no. 21 and Settipani (2000-2002), addenda I, 26; 34-35. According to Jacques

(1986), 200, responsibility for the obscurity of this gens lies in the Historia Augusta which created anachronistic

relations between the Ceionii and the Nummii to praise them. 125

Much discussion has focused on the exact course of this man‟s career. In addition to PIR² N 238, see also

Leunissen (1989), 226; 240; Peachin (1996), 97-100 for some more recent views on, for instance, dates of positions

and with further references. 126

Thomasson (1996), 115, no. 51, argues that Nummius Albinus was legatus in both Africa and Asia. 127

Suggested by Eck in RE Suppl. 14, 288ff. 128

That Senecio Albinus‟ father was a brother of Didius Iulianus, is recorded in the Historia Augusta, Vita Did. Iul.,

1, 1-2. There is some question as to whether Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus was the son of Nummius

Albinus and then adopted by M. Umbrius Primus, the traditional view, or whether he was the son of Umbrius Primus

and adopted by Nummius Albinus. Cf. PIR V 3; Leunissen (1989), 109; Peachin (1996), 98, note 34. Contrary to

what has been suggested, Nummius Albinus (PIR² N 226) was not identical to Ceionius Albinus (PIR² C 599), who

was killed by Septimius Severus, since it has become clear that the Nummii and Ceioni were not linked before the

end of the third century AD.

97

- Stepbrother (frater uterinus) of L. Roscius Aelianus Paculus Salvius Iulianus, consul

ordinarius 223.129

- Father of M. Nummius Tuscus, consul ordinarius 258, and perhaps also of M. Nummius

Albinus, consul II ordinarius 263.

Name M. Nummius Albinus (= M. Nummius Attidius Senecio Albinus) (PIR² N 227/PLRE I,

Albinus 9)130

Cursus honorum - (Consul suffectus before 256, ca 240?)

- Praefectus urbi 256 and 261-263

- Consul II ordinarius 263 with Dexter/Maximus

Notes - Perhaps son of M. Nummius Senecio Albinus, consul ordinarius 227.131

- Perhaps brother of M. Nummius Tuscus, consul ordinarius 258.

- Probably the member of the gens who died of old age under Aurelianus.132

Name M. Nummius Tuscus (PIR² N 237)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius with Mummius Bassus (258)

Notes - Son of M. Nummius Senecio Albinus, consul ordinarius 227.

- Perhaps brother of M. Nummius Albinus, consul II ordinarius 263.

- Probably father of M. Nummius Tuscus (PIR² N 236), consul ordinarius 295.133

- According to SHA, Aurel. 13, 1, he visited public baths in Byzantium with emperor

Valerianus, praefectus praetorio Baebius Macer, and some other people.

The origin of Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus is unclear: the family seems to have

had property in Brixia (N-Italy) which indicates that Nummius Albinus may have been born

there, but he may also have originated from Beneventum (S-Italy, Campania), a city of which he

129

Settipani (2000-2002), addenda I, 36, suggests that Roscius Aelianus Paculus Salvius Iulianus was more distantly

related to Nummius Senecio Albinus, consul ordinarius 227. 130

CIL 06.41225a = AE 2000, 93 = AE 2000, 179 (Roma). [Nu]mmius Albi[nus] (PIR² N 228) may have been

identical with this man. He was either praeses or legatus proconsulis in Lycia et Pamphylia, or he at least owned

property there. Nummius Albinus (PIR² N 229), who dedicated an altar to Iuppiter Serenus in Rome (CIL 6.433 =

ILS 3042, Roma), was also a member of the gens Nummia Albinia, but it is uncertain whether he is identical with one

of the other Nummii Albini. The same goes for M. Nummius Albinus (PIR² N 230), who is mentioned on the epitaph

of a female slave (CIL 9.4330, Aquila, Italy). By now it has become clear that Nummius Aemilianus Dexter

flourished at the end of the fourth century AD. See PLRE I, Dexter 1, with further references. Nevertheless,

Thomasson (1972-1990), vol. I, 27, no. 195, still assumes that he is identical with Aemilianus, consul in 259. 131

Christol (1986), 215-216, thinks not, because of the age difference. Jacques (1986), 201, suggests that he was the

son of Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus, consul ordinarius 206. 132

Petrus Patricius, Continuator Dio, Excerpta de Sententiis 174. 133

This Nummius Tuscus (PIR² N 236) was consul ordinarius in 295 with C. Annius Anullinus (PIR² A 632) as his

colleague. After 295, he was curator aquarum et [Miniciae], and praefectus urbi 302/303. See CIL 6.31378b = ILS

643 (Roma).

98

was patronus. The fact that the Umbrii Primi from Compsa, the family which had adopted

Nummius Albinus, had close connections with the city of Beneventum strengthens the

presumption that Nummius Albinus had his origins there. Either way, it is likely that he had Italic

roots or was at least strongly connected to cities in Italy.

Senecio Albinus seems to have been the first member of the gens to hold a consulship in

206. His colleague was Fulvius Aemilianus, of the gens Fulvia. Umbrius Primus, who was

probably Senecio Albinus‟ adoptive father, had been consul suffectus ca 185/186 and was

proconsul of Africa only a few years before his adopted son‟s consulship.134

Since our Senecio

Albinus started his career as triumvir monetalis and he was both quaestor and praetor as

candidatus Augusti, he seems to have had patrician status, which is quite surprising if he was

indeed related to Severus‟ former rival Didius Iulianus and if his father was indeed condemned to

death by Severus in 193.135

He was even entrusted with a position cognoscens vice sacra, judging

as deputy of the emperors, perhaps in 208 when Severus and his sons left the capital.136

The next member of the Nummii with a consular career was Nummius Senecio Albinus,

consul ordinarius in 227. He was Senecio Albinus‟ son and his consular colleague was Laelius

(Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus, of whom it has been suggested that he was distantly related to

the senatorial gens Fulvia.137

Nummius Albinus was praefectus urbi in 256 and again from 261 to 263, and consul

iterum in 263.138

He was perhaps a son of the consul of 227, just like Nummius Tuscus, consul

ordinarius in 258, who – if we may believe the Historia Augusta – visited public baths together

with the emperor Valerianus.139

Tuscus‟ colleague was Mummius Bassus (PIR² M 702), whose

134

Leunissen (1989), 215-216, dates the proconsulship at ca 201/202; Settipani (2000), 385, dates it at 204. It has

been suggested that Senecio Albinus was quaestorian legatus in Africa when his father was governor of this

province. On this, see Peachin (1996), 98-100, with further references. 135

On this, see Alföldy (1968), 129; 138; 148. 136

This date is suggested by Peachin (1996), 101. 137

See Alföldy (1982), 363. 138

The identity of his consular colleague is unclear: two inscriptions read „Alboni II et Maximo‟, while all other

sources mention Albinus and Dexter as consuls for 263. Confusion with the consuls of 227, Albinus and Maximus, is

unlikely, since no inscription of 227 gives an iteration number for Albinus. No other consulship of an Albinus and a

Maximus is known. Therefore, the two inscriptions probably belong to 263 (when two fasti, Chronogr. a. 354, and

Fasti Heracliani, give the iteration number of Albinus). Maximus thus seems to have been consul in 263; whether he

is identical with Dexter, preceded him or replaced him is uncertain. See PLRE I, Maximus 1, with further references. 139

HA, Vita Aurel., 13, 1.

99

family and further career are unknown.140

Unfortunately, no further information on the careers of

these Nummii is available to us. Whether Nummius Faus(t)ianus, consul ordinarius in 262 with

emperor Gallienus, belonged to the same gens cannot be determined.141

The Nummii did not disappear from the consular fasti after 284. On the contrary, another

Nummius Tuscus, probably the son of the consul of 258, was consul ordinarius in 295 and city

prefect in 302/303; several other Nummii held consulates and proconsulships in the course of the

fourth century.142

13. The Pollieni/Pollenii143

Name (Ti.?) Pollienus Auspex maior (PIR² P 537)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus 170/175

- Legatus Aug pr pr Dalmatiae 173/175

- Iudex ex delegatione Caesarum 176/180

- Praefectus alimentorum (viarum) Appiae et Flaminiae ter ca 180

- Proconsul Africae ca 180/200

- (Legatus Moesiae Inferioris?? 193/197)??144

Notes - Father of (Ti.?) Pollienus Auspex minor, consul suffectus ca 185?.

- Probably grandfather of Iulius Pollienus Auspex, consul suffectus 212/222.

Name (Ti.?) Pollienus Auspex minor (PIR² P 538)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus before 193?, ca 185?145

140

See Christol (1986), 99. Dietz (1980), 191, has suggested that this Mummius Bassus may have been related to L.

Mummius Felix Cornelianus (PIR² M 703), consul ordinarius 237, and to L. Mummius Maxi[mus] Fa[us]tinianus

(PIR² M 706), vir clarissimus et patricius, but as far as I can tell the assumption is not supported by any evidence. 141

Christol (1986), 103. 142

See Settipani (2000), 384-387. Jacques (1986), 170, points out that the Nummii established relations with the gens

C(a)eionia, which flourished at the end of the third and in most of the fourth century AD. 143

See PIR², pars VI, 235, for a stemma. 144

As suggested by several scholars. See Peachin (1996), 95, with further references. 145

Confusion and discussion abound about which positions should be asigned to this man and which to his

homonymous father. Here I adopt the opinion of Eck which can be found in DNP, vol. 10, s.v. Pollenius. According

to him, Pollienus maior (PIR² P 537) was consul suffectus, legatus consularis of Dalmatia, judge vice Caesaris,

praefectus alimentorum viae Appiae et Flaminiae ter and proconsul Africae during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and

Commodus (and possibly also legatus Moesiae Inferioris under Septimius Severus). He was also the one who was

XVvir sacris faciundis in AD 204. Pollienus minor (PIR² P 538) was his son and he was also consul suffectus and

judge vice Caesaris. Besides that, he held some positions as governor between 193 and 197 or during the reign of

Severus Alexander. For other opinions about their careers, see Leunissen (1989); Peachin (1996), 93-96; Thomasson

(1996), 76; Birley (2005), 350. According to PIR² P 538, the start of his career should be dated somewhat earlier, at

100

- Iudex ex delegatione Caesaris/vice Augg cognoscens 197-202? or ca 218-219?146

- Legatus Aug pr pr Hispaniae Tarraconensis 186/189, 193/197?, or 222/235?

- Legatus Aug pr pr Daciae ca 190/192, or 193/197?, or 222/235?

- Legatus Aug pr pr Moesiae Inferioris 193/197?, or 222/235?

- Legatus Aug(g?) pr pr Britanniae ca 193/197?, or 198/200, or ca 230147

Notes - Son of Pollienus Auspex maior, consul suffectus 170/175.

- Perhaps father of Ti. Iulius Pollienus Auspex (PIR² P 539), consul suffectus 212/222. It

has also been suggested that he may have been identical with Iulius Pollienus Auspex.148

- Probably adoptive father of Pollenius Armenius Peregrinus, consul ordinarius 244.

Name Ti. Iulius Pollienus Auspex (PIR² P 539)

Cursus honorum - Legatus Aug pr pr Numidiae 212/222)

- Consul suffectus (in absentia) 212/222

Notes - Perhaps the son of Pollienus Auspex minor, consul suffectus ca 185?, or identical with

this man.

Name Ti. Pollenius Armenius Peregrinus (PIR² P 536)

Cursus honorum - Proconsul Lyciae et Pamphyliae ca 243

- Consul ordinarius 244 with Fulvius Gavius Numisius Aemilianus

- Proconsul Asiae??149

Notes - Probably son of L. Armenius Peregrinus (PIR² A 1059), praetor and frater Arvalis in 213.

- Probably adopted shortly after 220 by Pollienus Auspex minor, consul suffectus ca 185?.

- Perhaps older brother of Armenius Titianus (PIR² A 1060), frater Arvalis in 240.

The Pollieni (or Pollenii), probably from Italy, reached consular status in 170s AD when

Pollienus Auspex maior was appointed governor of the consular province of Dalmatia under

Marcus Aurelius.150

His homonymous son presumably held a suffect consulship at the end of the

the end of the reign of Commodus: consul ca 185, governor of Hispania between 186 and 189 and governor of Dacia

between 190 and 192. 146

According to Peachin (1996), 93-96, this position was held during Septimius Severus‟ absence from Rome

between 198 and 202. However, Birley (2005), 350, thinks the tenure of office should be dated ca 218-219 or even

later, during the years from 232 onwards. 147

According to Birley (2005), 350, Pollienus minor governed Britannia Superior, not the undivided province.

Furthermore he thinks the position should be dated to the reign of Severus Alexander, circa 230. Eck, DNP, vol. 10,

s.v. Pollenius, however, argues that the fact that there is no mention of Inferior or Superior supports the conclusion

that this position should be dated between 193 and 197. In PIR² P 538 the position in Britain is dated somewhat later,

between 198 and 200. 148

On both suggestions, see PIR² P538 with further references. 149

See Eck (1983), 855. 150

Provincial origins for the gens cannot be excluded. On the subject of their geographical origin, see PIR² P 537;

Birley (2005), 350-351.

101

reign of Commodus. Both of them served as iudices ex delegatione Caesaris, judicial deputies of

the emperor in Rome. Pollienus maior seems to have held this position when Marcus and

Commodus were fighting the Germans and Sarmatians. When Pollienus minor was iudex is

subject to debate: it was either under Commodus, during the reign of Septimius Severus, or even

under Severus Alexander.151

After his judicial service, the father was praefectus alimentorum in

Rome thrice and governor of Africa. Perhaps he was also governor of Moesia Inferior at the start

of the reign of Septimius Severus. The son was sent to govern several provinces with legions

stationed in it. The influential position of Pollienus maior becomes clear from a passage of Dio,

which states that Pollienus Sebennus, a nephew of Pollienus maior, was granted mercy through

the mediation of his uncle, who apparently even was in a position to mock Septimius Severus at

his self-adoption into the house of Marcus Aurelius.152

Two more generations of the gens appear in the consular fasti. Iulius Pollienus Auspex,

consul suffectus in absentia between 212 and 222, seems to have been Pollienus Auspex minor‟s

son and was probably the adoptive father of Pollenius Armenius Peregrinus, consul ordinarius in

244. The latter married a daughter of Flavius Iulius Latronianus, city prefect under Gordianus III.

His consular colleague was Fulvius Gavius Numisius Aemilianus, of the gens Fulvia.

Thus, the Pollieni belonged to the senatorial inner circle throughout the first half of the

third century AD. However, after the 240s they seem to have disappeared from the consular fasti.

There is no indication that they attained patrician status.

14. The Pomponii153

Name C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus (PIR² P 707)

Cursus honorum - Quaestor provinciae

- Curator rei publicae [Aq/Ur]vinatum

- Legatus Aug/Iuridicus per provinciam Hispaniam Citeriorem (?) ca 185

- Proconsul Lyciae et Pamphyliae 186/187?154

151

According to Birley (2005), 350, this position should be dated ca 218-219 or even later, during the years from 232

onwards. Peachin (1996), 93 and 96, however, thinks that Pollienus minor was iudex during Septimius Severus‟

absence from Rome between 198 and 202. 152

Dio 77, 9, 2-4. Senator Pollienus Sebennus (PIR² P 540) was aedilis in 205 and was accused in the senate after his

governorship in Noricum (AD 205/206) by his successor A. (P. Catius) Sabinus (PIR² C 571). 153

Stemmata appear in PIR², pars VI, 310, and Settipani (2000), 259, but the exact family ties are very uncertain. 154

Leunissen (1989), 278 and 301.

102

- Legatus Aug pr pr Pannoniae Inferioris 187/189?

- Praefectus aerarii militaris 190?-192?

- Consul suffectus ca 193?155

Notes - Probably descendant from T. Pomponius Bassus (PIR² P 705), consul suffectus 94, of L.

Pomponius Bassus (PIR² P 704), consul suffectus 118, and of L. Pomponius Bassus Cascus

Scribonianus (PIR² P 706), consul suffectus 138/143.

- Probably the father of (Pomponius) Bassus, consul ordinarius 211.156

Name Pomponius Bassus (PIR² P 700)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 211 with Terentius Gentianus

- Legatus Aug pr pr Moesiae (Superioris or Inferioris)?? 212/217157

Notes - Probably son of C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus, consul suffectus ca 193?.

- Probably father of the Bassus (PIR² P 701) who was his lieutenant when he was governor

of Moesia (Dio 79, 21, 2).

- Killed by Elagabalus ca 220 (Dio 80, 5, 1-4). Shortly afterwards, the emperor married

Bassus‟ wife Annia Faustina (PIR² A 710).

Name (Ti./F.) Pomponius Bassus […]stus (PIR² P 702; PLRE I, Bassus 17)

Cursus honorum - Consul 245/250?, or 259158

- Proconsul (Asiae or Africae) ca 260?159

- Comes Augusti ca 268/9?

- Corrector totius (Italiae?) 268/9?

- Praefectus urbi 270/271160

- Consul II ordinarius 271 with Aurelianus

Notes - Probably grandson (or great-grandson) of Pomponius Bassus, consul ordinarius 211.161

155

Leunissen (1989), 151-152, shows no doubt whether it was this Bassus who was consul suffectus in 193. On the

identification of praefectus urbi Bassus with this man, see Leunissen (1989), 308, note 12. Eck (1971), 747,

however, argues that Pomponius Bassus Terentius cannot be identified with the Bassus who was consul in 193, nor

with the praefectus urbi, since nothing is known about this man‟s consulship. It is possible that Pomponius Bassus

Terentius was the Bassus, amicus Severi, mentioned by Epitome de Caesaribus 20, 6, although this cannot be

determined with certainty either. 156

Leunissen (1989), 373. 157

It is likely but not entirely certain, that the consul ordinarius of 211is identical to the legatus Moesiae mentioned

in Dio 79, 21, 2. 158

PIR² P 702 and PLRE I, Bassus 17, assume that he was consul ordinarius in 259 with Aemilianus, but Christol

(1986), 223-224, disagrees and suggests this may be the son of the consul ordinarius 259. 159

From CIL 6.3836 = 31747 = IG XIV, 1076 = IGRR I, 137 (Roma), we know that he was proconsul. The province

which he governed, however, is unknown. PLRE I, Bassus 17, has suggested Africa, but this suggestion cannot be

found in Thomasson (1972-1990), vol. I, nor id. (1996). 160

His name is not mentioned in the Chronogr. a. 354 (ed. Mommsen, Chronica Minora I), so he probably held the

position briefly within a year; perhaps between Flavius Antiochianus and Postumius Varus in 270, or between Varus

and Antiochianus‟ second term as city prefect in 271. See PLRE I, Bassus 17.

103

- Probably identical with the Bassus who was princeps senatus ca 268/270 (Epitome de

Caesaribus 34, 3).

Pomponius Bassus Terentianus, the first member of the gens Pomponia to reach consular status

between AD 193 and 284, was a descendant of several consules suffecti between late first and

mid-second centuries AD. While the gens probably had Italic roots, there is no indication that

members of it had patrician status.162

Terentianus may have been the Bassus who is called amicus

Severi in the Epitome de Caesaribus, but besides his consulate, to which he may even have been

appointed by Commodus, we do not know of any consular positions held under Severus.163

Bassus, consul ordinarius in 211, was probably Terentianus‟ son. His consular colleague

was Terentius Gentianus, a member of the gens Hedia Lolliana.164

Only one consular position is

known to us: he was governor of Moesia during the reign of Caracalla. He never had the chance

to reach the pinnacle of the senatorial career, since Elagabalus killed him ca 220. Soon

afterwards, the emperor took Bassus‟ wife Annia Faustina as his third wife.165

The gens disappeared from the consular fasti for only one generation. Circa 260,

Pomponius Bassus …stus became proconsul of either Asia or Africa. Whether he is identical

with the Bassus who was consul ordinarius in 259 is not certain, but he must have held a

consulate before his proconsular appointment. Later, Bassus …stus was both comes Augusti,

probably under Gallienus, and city prefect under Aurelianus, who was also his consular colleague

during his second consulate in 271, by which point he seems to have been princeps senatus.166

Besides this, he was probably related to Flavius Antiochianus, city prefect in 270. No further

members of the gens Pomponia are known to us after 271.

161

He either was the son of (Pomponius) Bassus (PIR² P 701), tribunus militum in Moesia, or the son or grandson of

Pomponia Ummidia (PIR² P 781), who was a daughter or granddaughter of Pomponius Bassus, consul ordinarius

211, and of Annia Faustina. Pomponia Ummidia was the wife of Flavius Antiochianus (PIR² F 203), consul II

ordinarius 270. 162

On the origin of the gens, see Leunissen (1989), 357. 163

Epitome de Caesaribus 20, 6. 164

According to Settipani (2000), 259, Bassus and Terentius Gentianus were brothers-in-law. 165

Dio 80, 5, 1-4. 166

Epitome de Caesaribus 34, 3.

104

15. The Postumii167

Name (T. Fl.) Postumius Varus (PIR² P 900/PLRE I, Varus 2)

Cursus honorum - Legatus legionis II Augustae (Britannia) 240/250168

- Consul suffectus ca 250169

- Praefectus urbi 271

Notes - May have been descendant (great-grandson?) of M. Postumius Festus (PIR² P 886),

consul suffectus 160, and of T. Flavius Titianus, praefectus Aegypti 126-133 (PIR² F 385;

386).170

- Probably related to (brother or uncle?) T. Flavius Postumius Titianus (PIR² P 899),

proconsul Africae 295; consul II ordinarius 301; praefectus urbi in 305-306.171

- Related to (brother or uncle?) Postumius Quietus (PIR² P 890), consul ordinarius 272.172

- Probably related to Postumius Suagrus, praefectus urbi 275.173

- There may have been another T. Flavius Postumius Varus, who was this man‟s son.174

Name (T. Fl.) Postumius Quietus (PIR² P 890/PLRE I, Quietus 2)

Cursus honorum - Quaestor candidatus

- Praetor candidatus tutelarius

- (Legatus pr pr/proconsulis) Asiae ??

- Curator rei publicae Aeclanensium (item Oc)riculanorum

- Curator viae […] et alimentorum

- Consul ordinarius 272 with (Iunius) Veldumnianus

Notes - Brother or cousin of Postumius Varus, consul suffectus ca 250.

- Related to (older brother?) T. Flavius Postumius Titianus, consul II ordinarius 301.

- Related to Postumius Suagr(i)us, consul suffectus before 275.

167

See Settipani (2000), 373, for a stemma. 168

The date is based on Christol (1986), 193-194. 169

Based on an interval of about twenty years between consulate and city prefecture. See Christol (1986), 194. 170

Settipani (2000), 371-373, portrays Pomponius Festus was a great man in the age of the Antonines and a friend of

Fronto. See Christol (1986), 195 note 6; Birley (2005), 362. 171

According to Christol (1986), 195, it is unlikely that Postumius Titianus was his brother, because of the

considerable difference in age. Birley (2005), 362, suggests that Postumius Titianus may also have been his uncle.

Settipani (2000-2002), addenda II, 78, holds that Quietus and Postumius Titianus were brothers, based on CIL

6.41224 (Roma). 172

Birley (2005), 362. 173

Birley (2005), 362, note 112. 174

Christol (1989) 195; Settipani (2000), 371-373.

105

Name Postumius Suagr(i)us (PIR² P 896/PLRE I, Suagrus)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus before 275?

- Praefectus urbi 275

Notes - Related to Postumius Varus, consul suffectus ca 250; Postumius Quietus, consul

ordinarius 272; and Postumius Titianus, consul II ordinarius 301.

The third-century (Flavii) Postumii may have descended on the one hand from the Numidian

orator and philosopher Postumius Festus from Cirta, who was consul suffectus in 160, and on the

other hand from eques Flavius Titianus, governor of Egypt under Hadrianus. Flavius Titianus

probably fathered Flavius Claudius Sulpicianus, consul suffectus circa 170 and later proconsul

Asiae (186). Sulpicianus‟ daughter, Flavia Titiana, was the wife of emperor Pertinax, who

appointed his father-in-law as city prefect in 193. It seems that Flavius Sulpicianus was executed

in 197, perhaps after he supported Clodius Albinus. Apparently, this did not harm the reputation

of his offspring, since his son Flavius Titianus was made consul suffectus circa 200. He married

Postumia Varia, descendant of Postumius Festus, and the third-century consular Postumii seem to

have been their descendants.

Whether Postumius Varus, consul suffectus ca 250 was a patrician cannot be determined,

but Postumius Quietus who was both quaestor and praetor as candidate of the emperor, seems to

have had patrician status.175

After some praetorian curatorships, he finally held an ordinary

consulate in 272, the year after Varus held the city prefecture of Rome. Quietus‟ consular

colleague was (Iunius) Veldumnianus, of whom it has been suggested that he was a descendant of

the emperor Trebonianus Gallus.176

In 275, Postumius Suagr(i)us, another member of the gens,

was praefectus urbi.

Most likely also belonging to the gens was the patrician Flavius Postumius Titianus (PIR²

P 899), consul iterum in 301, whose career started at the very end of the period under discussion

and whose consular career took place after 284.177

No members of the gens are known to us who

175

Christol (1986), 195, note 6, asserts that Postumius Varus was probably not a patrician. The Postumii are not

mentioned in the list of patricians of Jacques (1986), 122-123, either. 176

It has also been suggested that he descended from a group of Etruscan senators. See PLRE I, Varus 3; Christol

(1986), 207; Settipani (2000), 355. 177

Flavius Postumius Titianus was quaestor candidatus; praetor candidatus; consul suffectus/adlectus inter

consulares (before 291); corrector Italiae Transpadanae cognoscens vice sacra/electus ad iudicandas sacras

appellationes (291/2?); corrector Campaniae (292/3?); consularis aquarum et Miniciae; proconsul Africae (295/6);

consul II ordinarius (301); praefectus urbi (305-306). On Titianus‟ relationship with the other Postumii, see PLRE I,

Titianus 9 and Christol (1986), 125; 195; 238 with further references.

106

held consular positions after Titianus, so the family‟s glory seems to have peaked in the (second

half of the) third century.

16. The Valerii178

Name L. Valerius Messalla Thrasea Priscus (PIR V 95)179

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 196 with Domitius Dexter

- Curator aquarum ?? ca 198180

Notes - May have been a descendant of the old republican and patrician gens of the Valerii

Messallae.181

- Related to (father of?) L. Valerius Messal(l)a Apollinaris, consul ordinarius 214.182

- Executed during the sole reign of Caracalla.183

Name L. Valerius Messal(l)a Apollinaris (PIR V 86)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 214 with C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus

- Proconsul Asiae 236/238184

Notes - Related to (son of?) Valerius Messalla Thrasea Priscus, consul ordinarius 196.

- Possibly father of L. Valerius Maximus, consul II ordinarius 256.

Name L. Valerius Claud(ius) Acilius Priscil(l)ianus [Maximus] (= Valerius Maximus) (PIR

V 81 and 84)

Cursus honorum - Sevir equitum Romanorum 185

- Triumvir monetalis

- Quaestor (prov. ---)

- Quaestor urbanus

- Praetor tutelaris

- Consul ordinarius 233 with Cornelius Paternus

- Curator alvi Tiberis riparum cloacarumque sacrae urbis186

178

For stemmata, see Settipani (2000), 224; 240. 179

Settipani (2000), 220, calls him L. Valerius Messala Thrasea Paetus. 180

Leunissen (1989), 316, note 52. 181

Leunissen (1989), 109. 182

Leunissen (1989), 109. 183

Dio 78, 5, 5; Leunissen (1989), 402. 184

SEG 26 (1976-1977) 1261 = IEph 4.1107 (Ephesos). According to Dietz (1980), 247, note 704, this man was

identical with Valerius Messalla (Apollinaris?), consul ordinarius 214. However, because of the interval of at least

21 years between the consulship and the proconsulship, Eck (1977), 231-233, has suggested that the proconsul of

Asia was perhaps a younger brother of the consul ordinarius of 214 or that the long interval might have been caused

by exceptional political circumstances. 185

See Körner (2002), 255-256, for a recent discussion of his career.

107

- [Comes Augg] of Pupienus

- Vigintivir 238187

- Curator Laurentium Lavinatium

- Praefectus urbi 255?

- Consul II ordinarius 256? with Acilius Glabrio188

Notes - Possibly son of L. Valerius Messal(l)a Apollinaris, consul ordinarius 214.

- Probably father of L. Valerius Poplicola Balbinus Maximus, consul ordinarius 253.189

Name L. Valerius Poplicola Balbinus Maximus (PIR V 121)

Cursus honorum - Sevir equitum Romanorum190

- Triumvir capitalis

- Quaestor candidatus

- Praetor candidatus tutelaris before 240191

- Legatus (proconsulis) provinciae Asiae

- Curator rei publicae Laurentium Lavinatium item cognoscens ad sacras appellationes ca

254/260192

- Consul ordinarius 253 with Volusianus

- Curator aquarum et Miniciae

- Praefectus alimentorum viae Flaminiae

Notes - Probably son of L. Valerius Maximus, consul II ordinarius 256.

- Probably father of (L. Valerius) Messal(l)a, consul ordinarius 280.

Name (L. Valerius) Messal(l)a (PIR² M 506/PLRE I, Messalla 1)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 280 with (Vettius) Gratus

Notes - Probably grandson of Valerius Messalla Apolinaris, consul ordinarius 214.193

- Probably son of L. Valerius Poblicola Balbinus Maximus, consul ordinarius 253.194

The third-century Valerii seem to have had Italic roots.195 They behaved as if they were

descendants of the republican Valerii Maximi. One was even named after the legendary

186

Leunissen (1989), 318. 187

Dietz (1980), 329-331. 188

The offices before and after the reign of Philippus Arabs are known to us, but it is noteworthy that we know no

details of his career during Philippus‟ reign. 189

Körner (2002), 356. 190

See Peachin (1996), 123-127, for a recent discussion of his career. 191

Peachin (1996), 124. 192

This date is suggested by Peachin (1996), 124. 193

Christol (1986), 116; PLRE I, Messalla 1. 194

According to Kreucher (2003), 200, the Messalla who was consul ordinarius in 253 cannot be identical with

Iunius Messalla who is mentioned in the Historia Augusta (Vita Car. 20, 4). He argues that the consul of 253 was

probably a member of the Valerii Messallae.

108

republican consul Valerius Poplicola.196 If the claim was just, the Valerii belonged to a gens

which had bred consuls from the republican period into the early principate. During the early

second century not much is heard of the gens, but it reappears in the consular fasti at the end of

the second century AD.

Between AD 193 and 284 five members of the gens had consular careers, all holding ordinary

consulships. The first to reach a consulship was Valerius Messalla Thrasea Priscus in 196. His

colleague was Domitius Dexter, who was consul iterum and one of Septimius Severus‟ loyal

supporters. Dexter held the city prefecture from June 193 onward and perhaps still held it during

his second consulship. Hardly anything is known about the further career of Thrasea Priscus.

From Dio we learn that Priscus was eventually executed during the sole reign of Caracalla.197

The motive for the execution of Priscus remains unclear, but the emperor‟s grudge was

apparently not aimed at the entire gens, since Valerius Messal(l)a Apollinaris, who seems to have

been the son of Thrasea Priscus, became consul ordinarius in 214. His colleague was Octavius

Appius Suetrius Sabinus, who started a senatorial career under Septimius Severus and was

imperial candidatus for the quaestorship and the tribunate (tribunatus plebis). Suetrius Sabinus

probably distinguished himself while holding military positions during Caracalla‟s expedition

against the Germans (circa 211-213), first as legatus legionis and later as praepositus/dux

vexillariis against the Alamanni.198 After this, Suetrius Sabinus was comes in expeditione

Germanica, amicus of Caracalla and consul.199 Unfortunately, we are not as well informed on the

further career of Valerius Messal(l)a Apollinaris. It is unclear what the course of his career after

his consulate was, but it has been suggested that he was proconsul Africae circa 236/238.200

Apollinaris‟ son Valerius Claudius Acilius Priscillianus Maximus reached consular status in

233 under Severus Alexander. His colleague was Cornelius Paternus on whose origin and career

we are badly informed.201

After his consulate, Valerius Maximus was curator alvei Tiberis, and

195

Leunissen (1989), 357; 359, suggests that they were from Lavinium (Latium); see also Körner (2002), 356. 196

Dietz (1980), 246; Jacques (1986), 216; Körner (2002), 356. 197

Dio 78, 5, 5. 198

See Dietz (1980), 195; Leunissen (1989), 345; 348; Peachin (1996), 106. 199

Dio 79, 13, 2; Peachin (1996), 103. The fact that Suetrius Sabinus‟ first consulate was ordinary indicates that the

emperor held him in high regard, which also comes into view from the other positions that he held under Caracalla

after his consulship. Although his career after the death of Caracalla shows some gaps, he still obtained several

important positions, resulting in a second ordinary consulship in 240. Hereby, he became the only person who held a

second consulship under Gordianus III. 200

Dietz (1980), 246-248; cf. Settipani (2000), 224. 201

Cn. Cornelius Paternus (PIR² C 1413) seems to have been proconsul of Africa or Asia and praefectus urbi, but the

positions cannot be dated. See Leunissen (1989), 107, note 26.

109

in 238 he was involved in the senatorial revolt. He was vigintivir and comes of emperor

Pupienus.202

Much later, under Valerianus, he was made city prefect of Rome and consul iterum.

Valerius Maximus‟ full name leads one to suspect that he was somehow related to the gens

Acilia.203

It is noteworthy that his consular colleague in 256 was Acilius Glabrio, a member of

this gens.

Valerius Maximus may have been the father of Valerius Poplicola Balbinus Maximus, the

descendant who was named after Valerius Poplicola. After having been quaestor and praetor as

imperial candidatus, and being curator and deputy judge in Italy, he became consul ordinarius in

253 with Volusianus Augustus, son of Trebonianus Gallus. The start of his career suggests that

the gens had patrician status.204

After his consulship Poblicola Balbinus Maximus remained in

Italy and held several offices, though he never reached a proconsulship or a second consulate.

In 280, another Messal(l)a was consul ordinarius. Nowadays, it is assumed that he was

member of the gens Valeria, and probably a son of Poplicola Balbinus Maximus.205

His consular

colleague was (Vettius) Gratus, presumably a member of the gens Vettia. Nothing further is

known about the career of this Messal(l)a.

In the fourth century, the Valerii still appear in the consular fasti, but not as frequently and

continually as in the third century.206

202

Dietz (1980), 246, calls him a „Repräsentant des römischen Uradels in der Opposition gegen Maximinus‟. Körner

(2002), 191; 194; 356, adds that he certainly belonged to the Italian nobility. Leunissen (1989), 116, suggests that

Valerius Maximus may have had role in Gordianus becoming emperor in 238 as well. Jacques (1986), 216, suggests

that Valerius Maximus may have been related to the emperor Balbinus, considering the name of his alleged son

Valerius Poplicola Balbinus Maximus, consul ordinarius in 253. 203

There are two hypotheses on this relationship: (1) Valerius Messalla Apollinaris was perhaps married to a

daughter of M‟. Acilius Glabrio, consul II ordinarius 186, and thus the mother of Valerius Maximus. (2) Apollinaris

was married to a daughter of Ti. Claudius Cleobulus and Acilia Frestana, daughter of Acilius Glabrio, consul II 186,

and Valerius Maximus was thus the grandson of this Acilia and great-grandson of Acilius Glabrio. See Settipani

(2000), 227-228 with further references. 204

In view of his career, it is very likely that this Valerius Poblicola Balbinus Maximus had patrician status.

According to Leunissen (1989), 378, his father Valerius Maximus was patrician as well. 205

Kreucher (2003), 200. 206

According to PLRE I, Maximus 48 signo Basilius, and stemma 30 (p. 1147), the Valerius Maximus (signo

Basilius) who was praefectus urbi 319-323, descended from L. Valerius Poplicola Balbinus Maximus. Other

descendants of the gens may have been the proconsul Africae 319; the praefectus praetorio 327-8, consul 327; and

the (Valerius) Maximus who was praefectus urbi 361-2. According to PLRE I, Messalla 2, the Messalla who was

consular governor of Pannonia Secunda ca 374 was also presumably a descendant of Messalla, consul ordinarius

280. The Messalla who was praefectus praetorio Italiae 399-400 may have been his son and thus another descendant

of the Valerii. On the fourth-century Valerii, see also Jacques (1986), 217-218.

110

17. The Vettii207

Name C. Vettius Gratus Sabinianus (PIR V 331)

Cursus honorum - Sevir equitum Romanorum turmae III

- Tribunus militum legionis VII Claudiae ??208

- (Quaestor candidatus?)

- Praetor candidatus tutelarius

- Curator Flaminiae et alimentorum

- Consul ordinarius 221 with M. Flavius Vitellius Seleucus

Notes - Grandson or son of C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes, consul suffectus ca 175/176,

proconsul Africae ca 190/200.209

- Probably father of Vettius Gratus Atticus Sabinianus, consul ordinarius 242.

Name C. Vettius Gratus Atticus Sabinianus (PIR V 322; 329)

Cursus honorum - Quattorvir viarum curandum/viocurus ca 228/230210

- Sevir equitum Romanorum turmae III

- Quaestor candidatus 234?211

- Praetor candidatus 239?

- (Praefectus frumenti dandi 240?) ??

- Curator viae Flaminiae et alimentorum 241?

- Consul ordinarius 242 with C. Asinius Lepidus Praetextatus

Notes - Probably son of C. Vettius Gratus Sabinianus, consul ordinarius 221.212

- Related to (brother of?) (C.) Vettius Gratus, consul ordinarius 250.213

- Probably the father of (C. Vettius) Gratus, consul ordinarius 280.

207

Stemmata can be found in PIR, vol. 3, 412, and, more recently, in Dietz (1980), 373, stemma 10 and Settipani

(2000), 333-335. 208

CIL 8.823 (Africa Proconsularis) mentions a C. Vettius G[ratus Sa]binianus who was tribunus militum VII

Claudiae and quaestor candidatus. According to PIR V 330 this man may have been identical with the consul

ordinarius 221. 209

Jacques (1986), 219; Leunissen (1989), 109. 210

See Dietz (1980), 248-251, no. 84, for a discussion of his career. 211

Dietz (1980), 363. 212

Dietz (1980), 363; Leunissen (1989), 468. 213

Dietz (1980), 249.

111

Name (C.) Vettius Gratus (PIR V 328)214

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 250 with Decius

Notes - Related to (son of?) C. Vettius Gratus Sabinianus, consul ordinarius 221.215

- Related to (brother of?) C. Vettius Gratus Sabinianus, consul ordinarius 242.

Name (C. Vettius) Gratus (PIR² G 227/PLRE I, Gratus 1)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 280 with Messal(l)a

Notes - Probably of the gens Vettia, and related to C. Vettius Atticus Gratus Sabinianus, consul

ordinarius 242, and to (C.) Vettius Gratus, consul ordinarius 250. He probably was one of

them‟s son.216

The origin of the gens Vettia is unknown.217

The first Vettius to hold a consulship was Gaius

Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes ca 175/176. Originally an eques, he was accepted in the

senatorial order by Antoninus Pius. Iulius Hospes was the son-in-law of Servius Cornelius Scipio

Salvidienus Orfitus who was consul in 149/150. Although his nuptial bond with the Scipiones

may have been relevant for his status as well, it probably was his successes in the battles against

the Germans and his help in suppressing usurper Avidius Cassius that motivated Marcus Aurelius

to appoint him consul. After his consulship, he served in several militarily relevant provinces,

before serving as governor of Africa at the end of Commodus‟ reign or the beginning of

Septimius Severus‟.218

The Vettii seem to have reached patrician status either before the

beginning of the third century or circa 220/5.219

214

According to PIR² S 205, he may have been related to Q. Sattius Flavius Vettius Gratus, consul ordinarius 250.

On Q. Sattius Flavius Vettius Gratus, see also PLRE I, Gratus 3, and Kreucher (2003), 200 with further references.

This Vettius Gratus restored a sacrarium at Rhegium as corrector (Lucaniae et Bruttii), according to AE 1923, 61

(Rhegium, Italy). According to PLRE, this man lived late third/early fourth century. 215

Körner (2002), 199/200, note 33. 216

Several scholars have argued that this Gratus was related to the Vettii. See PLRE I, Gratus 1; Jacques (1986), 219-

220; Kreucher (2003), 200. On the family relations, see also Settipani (2000), 332-335 with further references. 217

According to Leunissen (1989), 366, they were from Africa (Thuburbo Maius), Italy or Narbonensis. Dietz

(1980), 262, argues that they may have had relations with the Gordiani, since they certainly had strong connections

with Africa, but admits that this is merely a hypothesis. On their origins, see also Körner (2002), 199. 218

Iulius Hospes‟ full career: praefectus cohortis II Commagenorum (CIL 3.1619-7854); tribunus militum legionis I

Italicae; translatus in amplissimum ordinem ab imperatore divo Tito Antonino (AE 1920, 45); quaestor; tribunus

plebis; praetor; legatus proconsulis Asiae; legatus Aug. ad ordinandos status insularum Cycladum (special

appointment); iuridicus per tractus Etruriae Aemiliae Liguriae (under Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus); legatus

legionis III Italicae concordis (ca 169); legatus Aug. rationibus putandis trium Galliarum (special appointment, in

control of the urban finances); legatus (Aug.) legionis XIIII Geminae cum iurisdicatu Pannoniae Superioris;

praefectus aerari Saturni (in Rome); legatus Aug. pro praetore Pannoniae Inferioris (169-175, he took part in battle

against Germans; donis donatus ab imperatore divo Marco Antonino ob expeditionem Germanicam et Sarmaticam);

praepositus vexillationibus ex Illyrico missis ab eodem imperatore ad tutelam urbis (175, the year of Avidius

Cassius‟ usurpation); consul suffectus (ca 176); curator rei publicae Puteolanorum; curator aedium sacrarum;

legatus Augustorum pro praetore Dalmatiae; legatus Augg. pro praetore III Daciarum (ca 180; Dio 73, 3, 3);

112

The first consular member of the family in the third century was Vettius Gratus

Sabinianus, consul ordinarius in 221. He was the son or, more probably, grandson of Iulius

Hospes.220

His consular colleague was Marcus Flavius Vitellius Seleucus, on whom we are badly

informed.221

That Sabinianus was quaestor and praetor as imperial candidate points to patrician

status. Unfortunately, the consular portion of his career is not known to us. He might have died

quite soon after his consulship.

The next consular member of the gens was his son, Vettius Atticus Gratus Sabinianus,

consul ordinarius in 242.222

His colleague, Gaius Asinius Lepidus Praetextatus (PIR² A 1230),

may have been the son of Asinius Lepidus, probably consul suffectus before 222/226.223

It has

been suggested that Praetextatus was Sabinianus‟ brother-in-law.224

Vettius Gratus, consul

ordinarius in 250, may have been Sabinianus‟ brother. He had the honor of having Decius as his

consular colleague.

Exactly thirty years later, in 280, another Gratus was consul ordinarius. Nowadays it is

assumed that he was a member of the gens Vettia. He may have been the son of the consul of 242

or the consul of 250.225

His colleague was Messal(l)a, presumably a member of the gens Valeria.

The name „Vettius‟ appears in the consular fasti until well into the fourth century and

even the sixth century AD; the later Vettii may have descended from the third-century Vettii.226

legatus Aug. pro praetore Pannoniae superioris (ILS 3655); proconsul Africae (190/191? or at the beginning of the

reign of Septimius Severus). 219

Dietz (1980), 249. According to Jacques (1986), 219-223, Vettius Gratus Atticus Sabinianus, consul ordinarius

242, was probably of patrician status, but Vettius Gratus Sabinianus, consul ordinarius 221, was probably not. He

suggests that the gens obtained patrician status sometime between ca 220/225. 220

Leunissen (1989), 109. 221

Leunissen (1989), 368, mentions he was from the Near East, probably Syria, and states (107, note 26) that nothing

is known about this man‟s ancestry. 222

Leunissen (1989), 468. 223

Settipani (2000), 337. 224

Settipani (2000), 337, asserts that Praetextatus‟ sister was married to Vettius Atticus Gratus Sabinianus. 225

See PLRE I, Gratus 1; Jacques (1986), 219-220; Kreucher (2003), 200. 226

A Vettius Aquilinus, who seems to have been distantly related through Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes, consul

suffectus 176, was consul ordinarius in 286; C. Vettius Cossinius Rufinus was praefectus urbi in 315 and consul

ordinarius in 316; Vettius Rufinus was consul ordinarius in 323; Vettius Iustus was consul ordinarius in 328;

Vettius Agorius Praetextatus was praefectus urbi in 367; and Gabinius Vettius Probianus was praefectus urbi in 377.

They seem to have descended from Vettius Gratus Atticus Sabinianus, consul ordinarius 242. Finally, a Vettius

Agorius Basilius Mavortius was consul ordinarius in 527. Whether these men were actually descendants or only

claimed genetic lineage cannot be established. For stemmata and further references, see Settipani (2000), 332-335.

113

18. The Virii227

Name (L.?) Virius Lupus (PIR V 479)

Cursus honorum - Consul suffectus before 196/197

- Legatus Aug pr pr Germaniae inferioris (dux?) 196?-February 197

- Legatus Aug pr pr Britanniae 197-200?228

Notes - May have been related to Q. Virius Egnatius Sulpicius Priscus (PIR V 477), who seems

to have been consul suffectus during the reign of Septimius Severus or Caracalla.229

- Probably father of L. Virius Agricola, consul ordinarius 230, and of L. Virius Lupus,

consul ordinarius 232.230

Name L. Virius Agricola (PIR V 476)

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 230 with Sex. Catius Clementinus Priscillianus

Notes - Probably son of (L.?) Virius Lupus, consul suffectus before 196/197.

- Brother of L. Virius Lupus, consul ordinarius 232.

Name L. Virius Lupus (Iulianus?) (PIR V 481)

Cursus honorum - Sevir equitum Romanorum231

- Triumvir capitalis

- Legatus (proconsulis) Lyciae et Pamphyliae

- Allectus inter quaestorios

- Praetor

- Consul ordinarius 232 with L. Marius Maximus

- Legatus Aug Syriae Coelis ?? 238/244232

Notes - Probably son of (L.?) Virius Lupus, consul suffectus before 196/197.

- Brother of L. Virius Agricola, consul ordinarius 230.

227

For stemmata, see Dietz (1980), 374, stemma 11, and Settipani (2000), 360-362 228

These dates are based on Leunissen (1989), passim. 229

He may have been identical with the Sulpicius Priscus who was proconsul Asiae during the reign of Severus

Alexander, although this man‟s name may also have been Vibius Sulpicius Priscus. Cf. Thomasson (1972-1990), vol.

1, 235 no. 187. He may have been the uncle of Virius Lupus. On this matter, see Leunissen (1989), 171-172 and 228

with further references. Settipani (2000), 368, calls this man Q. Virius Larcius Sulpicius (Priscus) and links him with

Virius Lupus, suffectus 196/197, as well. 230

Birley (1981), 150. According to Jacques (1986), 221, he may also have been their uncle. 231

On his career, see Dietz (1980), 254-256, no. 16. 232

According to Dietz (1980), 254-256, the Virius Iulianus mentioned on an inscription from Heliopolis (ILS 9416)

which can be dated during the reign of Gordianus III, who seems to have been legatus Syriae Coelis, was probably

identical with Virius Lupus, consul ordinarius 232. Jacques (1986), 221-222, however, rejects this suggestion.

114

Name Vir(i)us Lupus (PIR V 480/PLRE I, Lupus 5)

Cursus honorum - Praeses/legatus Aug pr pr Arabiae before 278; 256/9?233

- Consul suffectus before 275; 256/259?

- Consularis sacrae urbis regionis II et curator Laurentum Lavinatium

- Consularis regionis II Caelemontium

- Praeses/legatus Aug pr pr Syriae Coelis before 278; 259/268?

- Iudex sacrarum cognitionum vice Caesaris per Aegyptum (or Asiam) et per Orientem

270/5, or 276/282

- Consul (II?) ordinarius 278 with emperor Probus

- Praefectus urbi 278-280

Notes - May have been the grandson or son of L. Virius Lupus, consul ordinarius 232, or the son

of Virius Agricola, consul ordinarius 230.234

- May have been an ancestor of Lupus, consularis Campaniae 361/3; of Flavius Lupus,

consularis Campaniae at the end of the 4th

century; of Virius Lupus, proconsul Africae

337/361; and of Virius Lupus signo Victorius, consularis Campaniae mid-/end of 4th

century.235

Name (L.) Virius Orfitus (PIR P 483; PLRE I Orfitus 2)

236

Cursus honorum - Consul ordinarius 270 with Flavius Antiochianus

- Praefectus urbi 273/4

Notes - Probably related to Virius Agricola, consul 230; to Virius Lupus, consul 232; and to

Virius Lupus, consul 278. The cognomen Orfitus also appears with the Cornelii

Scipiones.237

The geographical origins of the gens Viria cannot be established with certainty, but the

gentilicium is particularly common in nothern Italy.238

The first member of the gens to reach

233

On his career and the dates of the positions, see Christol (1986), 263-270, no. 62, and Peachin (1996), 127-129,

no. 11. 234

Kreucher (2003), 200, suggests that he was the (grand)son of the consul of 232; according to PLRE and Dietz,

374, stemma 11, he was the son of the consul of 232. Christol (1986), 270, only mentions that he may have been a

descendant of Virius Lupus, governor of Britannia under Septimius Severus. 235

According to PLRE I, Lupus 5. 236

According to Christol (1986), 132 and 270-272, there were two Virii Orfiti. He thinks Virius Orfitus maior was

consul suffectus around 250, praefectus urbi in 273/274 and consul II ordinarius in AD 280. He posits that Virius

Orfitus minor, consul ordinarius in 270, was his son. Otherwise, Christol claims, the interval between Orfitus‟ first

consulship and his position as praefectus urbi would have been remarkably short. The other possibility is that there

was only one Orfitus, that his consulship of 270 was a second consulship and that this was not mentioned in the

epigraphic evidence. This would be strange as well, according to Christol, since it was quite common in the third

century that a second consulship and a position as praefectus urbi overlapped. 237

Christol (1986), 110. PLRE I, Orfitus 2, does not mention a relationship with the other Virii. 238

Birley (1981), 150; Birley (2005), 185. Eck (1985), 188, argues that they may have been from Asia Minor, based

on an inscription from Ephesus (IEph. 710B).

115

consular rank was Virius Lupus, one of the generals who supported Septimius Severus at the

beginning of his reign. He was probably consular governor of Germania Inferior in 196/197, so

he must have held a (suffect) consulship prior to that position. In February 197, Virius Lupus

acted as general in a battle against Albinus and was defeated.239

Immediately after Severus‟

victory over Albinus and the British army at Lugdunum, Virius Lupus was sent to govern

Britannia, a failry typical sequence of offices.240

The position of the Romans in the north of the

province of Britannia was weak when Lupus arrived. Severus would not send anyone to Britannia

whom he did not totally trust, especially after the usurpation of Albinus.

General Virius Lupus probably was the father of Lucius Virius Agricola, consul

ordinarius in 230, and of Lucius Virius Lupus (Iulianus), consul ordinarius in 232. The gens may

have reached patrician status by then.241

Agricola‟s colleague was Sextus Catius Clementinus

Priscillianus, who either was the son of Catius Lepidus, consul suffectus ca 200, or may have

been related to Lucius Catius Celer, amicus of Caracalla, consul suffectus ca 241.242

Virius Lupus

(Iulianus)‟ colleague was Marius Maximus, member of the gens Maria and also a descendant of

one of Septimius Severus‟ generals. The consular portion of the careers of these Virii remains

unclear to us. According to Jacques, the gens attained patrician status circa 240/250, but he

presents no argument for his claim.243

Representing the next generation, Vir(i)us Lupus seems to have been a (grand)son of

Agricola or Virius Lupus (Iulianus). He probably held a suffect consulship in the 250s, and was

appointed judicial deputy of the emperor, probably in Egypt and the East, during the reign of

Aurelianus or Probus. It was probably after that position, at the end of the reign of Probus, that

Lupus held two senatorial top positions: a second consulship with Probus as his colleague and the

city prefecture of Rome.

The last third-century member of the Virii to reach consular rank was Virius Orfitus in

270. Orfitus‟ colleague was Flavius Antiochianus, who was consul iterum in 270 and praefectus

239

Dio 76, 6, 2. Some scholars assume that he was a general with a special command, but Leunissen (1989), 242f.,

argues that Dio would not have used the word stratègos in that case. Leunissen thinks it is more likely that Virius

Lupus acted as governor who commanded the provincial legions. 240

Leunissen (1989), 242. 241

Generally, patrician status is ascribed to Virius Lupus, consul ordinarius 232. Christol (1986), 133, however,

points out that the career of Vir(i)us Lupus, consul (iterum) in 278, makes it unlikely to assume that the Virii were

patrician at that point. Jacques (1986), 222, thinks that patrician status is improperly ascribed to the consul of 232,

but mentions the possibility that Virius Lupus, consul in 278, may have belonged to another branch of the gens. 242

Dietz (1980), 122 and 355; Leunissen (1989), 374. 243

Jacques (1986), 122-123.

116

urbi at the same time. Antiochianus was married to Pomponia Ummidia, member of the gens

Pomponia.244

Orfitus also held the city prefecture in 273/4.

Although these third-century Virii probably were ancestors of viri consulares of the

fourth century, the gens seems to have reached its prime in the third century.245

244

Christol (1986), 110 and 193. 245

A Virius Lupus (PLRE I, Lupus 6) was proconsul Africae between 337 and 361, and some others are mentioned

as consulares. On the Virii after 284, see Jacques (1986), 222-223.

117

CHAPTER 3

PRAETORIAN PREFECTS

AND OTHER HIGH-RANKING EQUESTRIANS

In the past, scholars have perceived a rise of the equites during the third century AD.1 However,

this view is problematic in more than one way. Already in the high Principate – from the Flavian

to the Antonine emperors –, the equestrian ordo was an even more heterogeneous group than the

higher-ranking ordo senatorius. Within the political system, the most significant subset of equites

contained those who served as equestrian officers in the army and senior civil administrators.2

Junior equites served as tribuni militum of legions and as praefecti of cohorts and cavalry units.

Each year about 360 posts were available for senior officers of equestrian rank. These military

officer-posts were a necessary hurdle for advancement to senior civil-administrative positions.3

Later, from the second century AD, the post of advocatus fisci became an alternative precursor.4

Later in their careers, equites could serve as provincial procuratores, who were responsible for

financial administration and sometimes military logistics, and supervised freedmen procurators

who themselves administered imperial properties in their provinces. Furthermore, equites could

be governors of minor provinces or imperial secretaries at court. Exceptionally successful equites

could eventually reach the high prefectures which formed the zenith of the equestrian career: the

praefectura annonae, the praefectura Aegypti or even the praefectura praetorio. In due course,

the senior equestrian posts were qualified hierarchically by salary level; in that way an equestrian

1 The notion of the rise of the equites was defined by Keyes (1915). Cf. Stein (1963), 444-459; Rémondon (1970),

100-101; Alföldy (1988), 193. 2 Millar (1992), 279-290, for instance, identifies three subsets within the ordo: (1) holders of the public horse, (2)

jurors at Rome, and (3) military and civilian office-holders. For the purpose of this study I will focus only on the

senior members of the last subset, as this group constituted, along with senior senators the political elite of the

Empire. It should be noted, however, that only a minority of the equites belonged to this subset of office-holders. 3 Equestrian men usually started their career by filling a sequence of military posts (the so-called tres or quattuor

militiae, depending on the number of positions). From the end of the Iulio-Claudian period the usual sequence of the

tres militiae was praefectus cohortis – tribunus militum – praefectus alae. See Devijver (1989), 16-28; 56-72; and

Dobson (1979). 4 The advocati fisci, employed by Hadrianus (HA, Vita Hadr. 20, 6), represented the fiscus (imperial treasury) in

court (cf. for instance Digesta 28, 4, 3) and apparently acted as legal authorities. On the advocatus fisci, see also

Crook (1995), 52-53.

118

career developed by analogy with the senatorial cursus honorum.5 The equestrian career pattern,

however, was never as strict as the senatorial one.

In the high Principate, most of the equestrians were landed gentry, but a minority

consisted of ranking soldiers who had acquired equestrian status after holding the post of

primipilus (senior centurion of a legion). Because the ordo equester was more accessible to

newcomers than the ordo senatorius, the equestrian order included far more members than the

senatorial.6 And just as entry into the equestrian order was a personal honor bestowed by the

emperor and not hereditary, so also ambitious equites who caught the attention of the emperor or

one of his advisers could be promoted, or have their sons promoted, to senatorial rank through

adlectio. By this process, the number of homines novi within the senate steadily increased during

the first and second centuries AD.7

The heterogeneous character of the ordo equester in imperial times also emerges in the

way the ordo has been dealt with in scholarly discussion: much effort has been made to collect

the scattered evidence, which has led to a number of works that treat certain aspects of the

equestrian career and the ordo equester, but books on the order as a whole are rare and have not

been written recently.8 Besides the inherently heterogeneous character of the order and the

scattered evidence – which becomes ever more scanty in the course of the third century – there is

another complicating factor: the equester ordo of the high Principate was a completely different

group of people than the equestrian order of the late third century.

Hence, instead of speaking of a rise of the equites in general, it is better to first sort out in

detail which equestrians saw their power increase in the very top of Roman imperial

administration, where status and power had been steadily highest. Therefore, this chapter will

5 Salary levels of 60,000 (sexagenarii), 100,000 (centenarii), 200,000 (ducenarii), and 300,000 (trecenarii) HS were

the basis of distinctions. Career inscriptions of equites use these descriptions as titles. 6 Strabo, Geographica 3, 5, 3; 5, 1, 7, informs us that under Augustus 500 equites lived in Gades (Spain) and

Patavium (Italy) respectively. According to Heil (2008b), 743, each generation of equites contained about 20,000

equites against circa 600 senators. Although these numbers may have changed after the Augustan era, the ratio of

equites to senators will probably have remained fairly constant in the high Principate. 7 See most recently Heil (2008b), 740-744, on the development of the equester ordo in the first and second centuries.

8 The syntheses of Keyes (1915) and Stein (1927, second edition 1963) are outdated, but have not been replaced by

more modern works. The amount of prosopographical research on specific aspects of the equestrian career is

immense. See, for example, Pflaum (1950); id. (1960-1961); Devijver (1976-2001); id. (1989); id. (1992). Demougin

(1988) focuses on the Iulio-Claudian period only. Demougin-Devijver-Raepsaet-Charlier (1999) collects articles

focusing on aspects of the order throughout several centuries, but does not amount to a history of the order as a

whole either. Some articles sketch the broader outlines of the order and its role in imperial administration. See, for

instance, Saller (1980); Alföldy (1981); Brunt (1983). For a recent discussion, see Heil (2008b), with further

references to previous studies at 738-740.

119

start by focusing on the increasing authority that high-ranking equestrians acquired in the third

century. For the sake of clarity this discussion is divided into three categories: (1) equites as

provincial governors, (2) equites involved in warfare and military logistics, and (3) equites as

imperial secretaries. Thereupon, I will briefly discuss whether the growing power had

consequences for the status of those high-ranking equestrians involved. In the second part of this

chapter, a case study on the praetorian prefects in the third century serves to further display and

illustrate the developing position of (at least some of the) high equestrians in this period. As will

become clear, the changing position of high-ranking equestrians as a group cannot be dissociated

from their changing composition between AD 193 and 284.

3.1. The increasing responsibilities of high equestrians in imperial administration

Equites as provincial governors

When Septimius Severus incorporated the northern part of Mesopotamia and organized it as a

Roman province in the 190s, the emperor appointed an equestrian praefectus to govern the area.9

In itself this was not a novelty. From the early Principate onward, a number of provinces were put

in the hands of equestrian governors.10

The province of Egypt, run by an equestrian praefectus,

was of course the most renowned example and it paralleled Mesopotamia as it was the only other

equestrian-governed province with legions stationed in it.11

Furthermore, from the Severan era onward, the number of cases in which senatorial

governors were replaced by equestrian agentes vice praesidis increased. This trend continued and

even intensified from 240 onward. The fact that agens v(ice) p(raesidis) was soon abbreviated as

a.v.p. in inscriptions indicates that the Empire‟s inhabitants „rapidly became familiar enough with

the phenomenon‟.12

Equestrians had replaced senatorial governors in the first and second

9 On the prefects of Mesopotamia in the third century, see Magioncalda (1982).

10 Alpes Maritimae, Alpes Cottiae, and Alpes Poeninae, tree small provinces straddling the Alps, for instance, were

governed by equestrians, as well as Mauretania Caesariensis and Mauretania Tingitana from the province‟s division

in the first century. Raetia, Noricum, and Thracia were originally also governed by equestrian procuratores Augusti,

but eventually transferred to senatorial legati Augusti pro praetore. On the names and ranks of the governors of these

provinces and for further references, see Thomasson (1972-1990), vol. I, 63-68 (Alpes); 77-86 (Raetia and Noricum);

161-178 (Thracia); 409-418 (Mauretaniae). From time to time, Judaea/Syria Palaestina was of course also governed

by equestrians, but this province is notorious as it shifted from being ruled by friendly kings to being ruled by

Romans, and as it was strongly dominated by the governor of Syria. On Judaea, see Goodman (2000). 11

The literature on the administration of Egypt is immense. On the praefecti governing Egypt, see, for example,

Reinmuth (1935); Stein (1950); Brunt (1975); Bastianini (1988); Bureth (1988); Jördens (2009); on Roman imperial

power in Egypt in the third century, see De Jong (2006). 12

Peachin (1996), 156. Cf. CIL 3.1625 (Dacia), which can be dated in the reign of Septimius Severus, with the

description agens v(ice) p(raesidis), and CIL 3.1464 = ILS 1370 (Dacia), probably to be dated in Caracalla‟s reign,

which yields the abbreviation a.v.p.

120

centuries as well, but only in exceptional cases, when a governor had died or had been dismissed.

Those appointments had been temporary and lasted only until a new senatorial governor had been

selected. Yet from the reign of Severus Alexander some areas, for instance Dacia, were so

frequently governed by equestrian agentes vice praesidis that it is unlikely that all these men

were appointed only as interim governors. The high number of agentes vice praesidis suggests

that the practice lost its improvised character and that the emperors used these appointments as a

way to assign certain provinces to equestrian governors without formally adjusting the

institutions of provincial administration.

Illustrative of this development is the career of Timesitheus. Before he became praetorian

prefect under Gordianus III, Timesitheus had gone through a long career with several

appointments as deputy governor (agens vice). Under Elagabalus Timesitheus was procurator in

Arabia serving as an agens vice praesidis twice. Under Severus Alexander he was agens vice

praesidis of the province of Germania Inferior, while simultaneously holding a position as agens

vice procuratoris of the imperial properties in Belgica, Germania Superior and Germania

Inferior. That the emperor was fighting Germanic invaders in the Rhine area in those years (AD

233/234) bolsters the significance of these positions. Pflaum argued that appointing Timesitheus

agens vice procuratoris was just a necessary step to allow him to also become deputy governor of

Germania Inferior and thus commander of the two legions stationed in this province.13

But

moreover, Timesitheus‟ combining the governorship with his position as procurator of the

Rhineland‟s imperial domains – a position normally assigned to freedman procuratores –

simplified logistics: the dual authority enabled Timesitheus both to collect the resources required

for wars against the invading tribes and to direct the battles.14

According to Pflaum, Timesitheus

was subsequently procurator of the imperial properties and simultaneously agens vice praesidis

in Bithynia et Pontus, including Paphlagonia, and finally procurator and vice proconsulis in the

province of Asia under Maximinus Thrax. In Asia, Timesitheus may have replaced proconsul

Valerius Messalla Apollinaris (see Chapter 2), the father of Valerius Maximus, who has been

identified as one of the vigintiviri of the year 238. If true, this may have indicated that the policy

of replacing senatorial governors had negatively affected the position of the senatorial elite

discussed in Chapter 2. The lacunae in the fasti of the provincial governors, however, do not

13

For an overview of Timesitheus‟ career, see Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, 816, no. 317. 14

On freedmen as procuratores of imperial domains, see Weaver (1972), 267-281.

121

allow us to test this hypothesis with a convincing amount of evidence. Being appointed as four

different agentes vice, Timesitheus may not have been representative of a typical eques replacing

senatorial governors, as he obviously was an exceptionally successful member of the equestrian

order. Yet Timesitheus‟ career indicates how continuous accumulation of basically equestrian

positions could consolidate a senatorial governor‟s level of power (or even higher) for an eques.15

Under Gallienus in the 260s, the process of replacing senatorial governors by equestrian

men continued and seems to have extended further: the available evidence reveals that there were

relatively more agentes vice praesidis in comparison with the late Severan era. From Gallienus‟

reign onward some provinces, like Arabia, Macedonia and Numidia, were almost continuously

governed by equestrian men, who were still called (procuratores) agens vice praesidis and thus

officially still acted as deputies of senatorial governors.16

Yet the change was not executed

systematically; senatorial governors were not ousted by equites everywhere. Even after 260,

senatorial men crop up among provincial governors, especially in senatorial consular provinces

which were not struck by long-term crisis like Africa and Asia, but also in imperial provinces

such as Hispania Tarraconensis and areas in the Balkans, as has been discussed in Chapter 2.17

The emperors after Gallienus did not reverse the process either. On the contrary, they

even enlarged the proportion of provinces governed by equestrians.18

The fact that most of these

emperors originated themselves from the ordo equester, as discussed in Chapter 1, must have

boosted this trend. Eventually, the agentes vice praesidis became so common that they were

simply referred to as praesides. In areas which experienced frequent internal or external military

crises, the equestrian praesides probably carried out mainly civil-administrative and judicial

tasks; the military responsibilities of these regions went increasingly into the hands of duces and

praepositi, as will be discussed below. In other regions, however, maintaining order may have

15

Petersen (1955), 47, who claims that the cumulation of vicariates in Timesitheus‟ career does not indicate imperial

policy, but that he was entrusted with many vicariates because he was closely related to Gordianus III, obviously did

not take into account that these replacements were held under Gordianus III‟s predecessors, Elagabalus, Severus

Alexander and Maximinus Thrax. Other examples of equites who functioned vice praesidis can be found in the lists

of Pflaum (1950), 134-136; Rémy (1976), 466-470; Peachin (1996), appendix 4, 229-238. See also Malcus (1969),

217-223, on equestrian agentes vice praesides, and most recently Heil (2008b), 750-751, for further references and

examples of the trend. 16

The province of Numidia, created under Septimius Severus, was initially governed by a senatorial legatus pro

praetore. He was replaced by an equestrian governor under Gallienus. On the provincial administration in Numidia

from Septimius Severus to Gallienus, see Le Glay (1991). 17

On the process in the 260s and for examples and further references, see Heil (2008b), 757-758. 18

Kreucher (2003), 202-212, describes the situation at the end of the period under discussion. The table at p. 211,

clearly shows that equestrian governors prevailed under Probus, but that senators were not entirely displaced as

governors. Cf. Glas-Hartmann (2008), 669.

122

belonged within the range of duties of the praeses. Zosimus tells of bands of robbers led by a

certain Lydius the Isaurian, who were active in Lycia et Pamphylia during Probus‟ reign. The

emperor sent as praeses to this area eques Terentius Marcianus. There is a fair chance that he was

the Roman general, referred to by Zosimus (1, 70, 4: Gr. ), who

was assigned specifically to this problem. The possibility that Marcianus served as military

officer in the area, before he was promoted to the position of praeses, cannot be excluded.19

Very little can be said about the origin and previous careers of the agentes vice praesidis

and praesides, as the rise of these men coincided with a numerical and qualitative decline of

extensive career inscriptions. Their names indicate that their families did not belong to any

groups which had been involved very long in imperial administration, and that some of these men

even belonged to families which had only been granted Roman citizenship in the course of the

third century. Some of them were social upstarts who had risen from the corps of officers, like

Aelius Aelianus, praefectus legionis under Gallienus, who became praeses of Mauretania

Caesariensis in the 270s.20

Aurelius Marcianus, dux under Gallienus, who fought the Goths in the

Balkans and became praeses Dalmatiae under Probus, is another example.21

In some cases, the

appointed praeses was already present in the area, serving as an officer before being promoted.22

Experience in the military and logistic sphere was apparently a good reason to appoint a man

praeses, yet there may also have been equites with a civil career who were made praesides,

especially if immediate availability was a decisive factor in appointments. The evidence is just

too fragmentary to exclude men with a financial or legal backgrounds, or to draw more specific

conclusions on the previous careers of the praesides in general.

19

On Lydius, see Zosimus 1, 69-70; On Terentius Marcianus, see AE 1995, 1541 (Pisidia). On Lydius and Terentius

Marcianus‟ role in Lycia et Pamphylia, see Kreucher (2003), 150-155, with further references. 20

If the Aelius Aelianus mentioned in CIL 3.3529 (Pannonia Inferior) and AE 1965, 9 (Pannonia Inferior), is indeed

identical with the one mentioned in CIL 8.21486 = ILS 4495 (Mauretania Caesariensis), as has been assumed in

Dobson (1978), 312, no. 220. Cf. PLRE I, Aelianus 8 and 10; Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, 948-952, no. 357. On

Aelius Aelianus, see also Chapter 4, section 4.2. 21

If the Marcianus praised in AE 1965, 114 (Thracia) and mentioned in HA, Vita Gall. 6, 1, is identical with the man

mentioned in CIL 3.8707 (Dalmatia). See PLRE I, Marcianus 2 and 18. Dobson (1978), 320, no. 230, discusses an

Aurelius Marcianus, referred to in CIL 6.2487 (Roma), who was primuspilus cohortis III Pretoria. He may have

been identical with the Marcianus, dux under Gallienus and praeses in Dalmatia, as well. Although Dobson assumes

that the inscription dates to the third century, he does not mention the possibility that these men may have been

identical. For further examples of men who had risen from military ranks and eventually became praeses, see Heil

(2008b), 759, note 89. On Marcianus, see also Chapter 4 below, section 4.2. 22

For example Statilius Ammianus (CIL 3.90; IGRR 3.1287 (Arabia); PLRE I, Ammianus 5), who was praefectus

alae circa 253/256 and agens vice praesidis Arabiae in 262/263. Another example is M. Aurelius Valentinus in

Macedonia (AE 1900, 169, Macedonia; PLRE I, Valentinus 8), who was tribunus and agens vice praesidis in 276.

Cf. Heil (2008b), 759. As said above, this may also have been the case with Terentius Marcianus in Lycia et

Pamphylia under Probus.

123

By the end of our period, in the 270s and early 280s, equestrians were administering a

considerable number of provinces. This development described above certainly bolstered the

status of those equites who were involved in provincial administration: their tasks were no longer

restricted to specific regions or traditional tasks, for they could now be deployed anywhere the

emperor needed them. Furthermore, the possibilities for them to become provincial governors

increased, whereby they gained influence in the civil-administrative sphere.

Equites involved in warfare and military logistics

Septimius Severus not only assigned the province of Mesopotamia to an equestrian governor, but

put the newly created legiones Parthicae under the command of equestrian praefecti as well.23

Moreover, the trend toward substituting senators with equites, which could be detected among the

third-century provincial governors, also surfaces among military officers. The command of

vexillationes and other temporary army units – the deployment of which grew significantly in the

third century, as flexibility became more crucial and the complete legions were mobilized less

often – went increasingly into the hands of capable equestrian duces or praepositi.24

Septimius

Severus still assigned most of these temporary units to senatorial commanders, albeit often

homines novi and thus first generation senators. The expeditionary forces of Caracalla and

Severus Alexander, however, included significantly fewer senatorial commanders, and under

Gallienus practically all high commands went to equestrians, as will be discussed in Chapter 4.

Yet until the 250s, senators were still appointed to relevant military posts. Great regional

commands, which were created from the 240s onward to defend the borders and maintain order

in specific areas, went to both senators and equites. For example, Priscus held such a supra-

provincial command in the East under Philippus Arabs, while maintaining equestrian status,

while Cornelius Octavianus, who was initially equestrian praeses in Mauretania Caesariensis,

was promoted to the position of dux per Africam Numidiam Mauretaniamque to defend the

African limes against invading tribes in the 250s. On the other hand, the fact that Decius, who

had gone through a traditional senatorial career, commanded the united troops of Moesia and

23

Smith (1972). On the increasing number and significance of equestrian positions under Septimius Severus and his

successors, see also Coriat (1978); Birley (1988), 195-196. Cf. Campbell (2005a), 12-13, who points out that two of

the newly created legions were stationed in Mesopotamia, which had an equestrian governor, „and a senator could

not be asked to serve under an eques‟. 24

On vexillationes, see Saxer (1967); on duces and praepositi, see Smith (1979).

124

Pannonia under Philippus Arabs shows that senators still received such military assignments in

the 240s as well. To what extent such commands included non-military tasks remains unclear.25

By the sole reign of Gallienus, senatorial tribuni militum were no longer attested and the

practice of replacing senatorial legati legionis with equestrian praefecti legionis had become

widespread. These equestrian legionary commanders were originally called praefecti legionis

agentes vice legati and thus presented as deputies of senatorial commanders. Later, the title was

abbreviated to praefecti (castrorum) legionis.26

The development seems to have been analogous

to the multiplication of agentes vice praesidis, who were eventually simply called praesides.

High military commands in regions continuously struck by internal or external military crises

went by then only to equestrians with considerable military or logistical experience, who then

often bore the title dux. Whereas the supra-provincial commanders appointed in the 240s and

250s may have had civil-administrative duties as well, these duces do not seem to have been

responsible for non-military matters within the provinces assigned to them.27

Thus, in the 260s,

senators no longer held high positions in the military bureaucracy. According to Aurelius Victor,

the emperor Gallienus even issued an official edict forbidding senators to take military

commands.28

The question whether there actually was such a decree has provoked extensive

scholarly discussion. Indeed, military tribunates and legionary commands disappeared from

senatorial career inscriptions, and senatorial governors of provinces with relevant troops or

25

Cf. Glas-Hartmann (2008), 654, who claim that such supra-provincial commands included both civil and military

authorities and were initially given mainly to senators. However, in Decius‟ case it is unclear whether he also acted

as governor of the Moesian and Pannonian provinces. Zosimus 1, 21, 2, only refers to the command of the legions.

On Decius‟ command in the Danube area, see also PIR² M 520; Huttner (2008), 201-202; Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt

(2008), 1162, with further references. The same lack of clarity applies to the exact range of duties of Decius‟

predecessor Ti. Cl. Marinus Pacatianus (PIR² C 930; cf. P 6). It has been assumed that he was the son of a senator,

but his senatorial status has been disputed. On Pacatianus, see Huttner (2008), 199-200, and Glas-Hartmann (2008),

655, with additional references. For more information on Priscus‟ command in the East and further references, see

PIR² I 488; Körner (2002), 366-367; Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1178-1179. On M. Cornelius Octavianus, see

PIR² C 1408; Glas-Hartmann (2008), 658; Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1139, with further references. 26

For example P. Aelius Aelianus (AE 1965, 9; CIL 3.3529) praefectus legionis (agens vice legati) II Adiutricis;

Valerius Marcellinus (CIL 3.3424 = ILS 545, Pannonia Inferior) praefectus legionis agens vice legati II Adiutricis;

Aurelius Frontinus (CIL 3.3525 = CIL 3.10492 = ILS 2457) praefectus legionis, all in Pannonia Inferior under

Gallienus; Cl. Aurelius Superinus (CIL 3.4289 = ILS 3656) praefectus legionis agens vice legati in Pannonia

Superior under Claudius Gothicus; cf. Aurelius Montanus (CIL 3.14359, 27 = ILS 9268) vices agens legati legionis

in Pannonia Superior, and Aelius Paternianus (CIL 3.3469) praefectus legionis agens vice legati in Pannonia Inferior

in the early 280s. Cf. Christol (1982), 147. The title praefectus legionis vice legati was first attested under Severus

Alexander for a commander of Legio II Parthica called Licinius Hierocles (ILS 1356, Mauretania Caesariensis). On

the praefecti legionis, see also Malcus (1969), 228-230. 27

On the duces under Gallienus and their responsibilities, see Chapter 4 of this thesis. 28

Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus, 33, 33-34; 37, 5-6.

125

legions stationed in it had become rare from the 240s onwards, as observed in Chapter 2.29

Whether there actually was an edict or not, – and in fact Aurelius Victor‟s statement is the only

evidence for its existence –, the available sources indicate that at this point Gallienus rather

formalized what had gradually become common practice than that he came up with deviant

appointment policies and radical reforms.30

At other points, Gallienus‟ reorganizations of military structures seem to have been more

radical. He created special military units, which were independent of the legions and directly

linked to the emperor in person. These units could be moved around easily and could therefore be

mobilized as an intervention force. The high percentage of cavalry guaranteed that this army

could swiftly track down and destroy small looting groups or enemies who had dispersed for

logistical reasons. Whether this army was a temporary unit which was made permanent, or a

permanently available imperial expeditionary army, is unclear. Its command was held by a

powerful equestrian commander, as Chapter 4 will discuss further. The vexillationes seem also to

have attained permanent status by the reign of Gallienus. Due to continuous fighting, they were

no longer called up ad hoc for specific purposes and then sent back to their original units, but

served continuously in the new imperial reserve army on various fronts.31

Strategically important

places, such as Milan and Aquileia in northern Italy, and towns in northern Gallia and the Danube

area and even Asia Minor, were fortified and defended by new garrisons, whose soldiers were

detached from various legions and put under the command of equestrian duces as well. All these

measures amounted to a much more flexible system of defense, foreshadowing defense methods

of the later Roman Empire.32

The continual internal and external threats also affected the position of equites in offices

that oversaw military logistics, especially from the 250s onwards. How material resources were

deployed to provision the Roman armies, in the form of taxes in money and kind, is a complex

matter which is still subject to debate. One complicating factor is that the Roman Empire never

developed a uniform and universally applied military supply system.33

Here, the subject can only

29

This was first observed by Pflaum (1976). Cf. Christol (1986), 39-44; Heil (2008b), 754; Hekster (2008), 41,

supplying further references and examples. 30 Cosme (2007) summarizes the scholarly debate on the „edict‟. 31

For example, L. Flavius Aper, who was praepositus (vexillationum) legionum V Macedonicae et XIII Geminae

Gallienarum (AE 1936, 53-54, 57, Pannonia Superior). Cf. Saxer (1967), 56-57. 32

De Blois (1976), 30-34; Simon (1980); Potter (2004), 257-258; Campbell (2005b), 115; Strobel (2007). 33

On logistics in the Roman Empire and for further references, see Roth (1999) and Kehne (2007). On logistics and

supply in the Republican era, see Erdkamp (1998).

126

be touched on briefly, focusing on the role of high equites within logistics and how third-century

events impacted their level of power.

One of the key figures in wartime logistics was the a rationibus (head of the central

administration of the emperor‟s finances) who, after an emperor had decided to wage a war,

handled the finances for the forthcoming campaign. A remarkable series of men with full military

and civilian equestrian careers held the office of a rationibus, and several of them even ascended

from below the equestrian order, from the rank of senior centurion.34

Furthermore, the office of

the annonae helped to plan, organize, and supervise the collection and transportation of grain. Its

equestrian praefectus presumably had to coordinate all relevant supply efforts with the a vehiculis

or the praefecti vehiculorum, supervisors of the imperial posting-system and in charge of

provincial roads.35

Army supply depended highly on requisitions. According to the Historia

Augusta, Severus Alexander made such careful provision for the soldiers that they received

supplies at each halting-place. The text even refers to a proclamation which was allegedly issued

by Severus Alexander, in which the emperor demanded that his army be supplied along the line

as it marched. Although the Vita Severi Alexandri probably reflects what was considered to be

proper imperial behavior in the late fourth century, it is not unlikely that such provisions were

made by third-century emperors:

He always kept secret the plan for a campaign, but announced openly the length of each day‟s

march; and he would even issue a proclamation two months beforehand, in which was written,

“On such and such a day, and at such and such an hour, I shall depart from the city, and if the

gods so will, I shall tarry at the first halting-place.” Then were listed in order all the halting-

places, next the camping-stations, and next the places where provisions were to be found, for

the whole length of the march as far as the boundaries of the barbarians‟ country.36

34

Millar (1992), 105-106, who points out that many of the a rationibus held procuratorships in Gallia before being a

rationibus. Contrary to Eck (2000), 240, who includes the a rationibus among the officia Palatina, Millar explicitly

distinguishes the post of a rationibus from the secretarial posts on the grounds that the a rationibus did not work

closely with the emperor, did not (usually) attend him or travel with him, or act as the emperor‟s adviser, but instead

operated independently of the emperor and at a distance from him. 35

The praefectus vehiculorum was head of the cursus publicus, arranging the transmission of messages or

transportation on behalf of public institutions (officials, military, and goods). See Kolb (2000), 159-166. In due

course, the administration of the annona militaris, a special tax presumably raised by Septimius Severus for the

benefit of the army, was transferred to the praetorian prefects. Most scholars, however, accept that this transfer took

place after AD 284. See also below (section 3.3), on this matter, with further references. 36

HA, Vita Sev. Alex. 45, 2; cf. 47, 1. On the Vita Severi Alexandri, cf. Bertrand-Dagenbach (1990). On imperial

travel in general, see further Halfmann (1986).

127

Other responsibilites in military logistics went to the ab epistulis (head of the office

controlling the emperor‟s correspondence), who sent out demands to allies for supplies and

recommended qualified officers or prefects for special posts, like the praepositus annonae

expeditionis.37

Such extraordinary commands remained limited in time and restricted to a specific

task. Tiberius Claudius Candidus, for example, functioned as praepositus copiarum in the second

Marcomannic war of Marcus Aurelius.38

One Rossius Vitulus was praepositus annonae during

Septimius Severus‟ expedition to Rome, procurator arcae expeditionalis (dispensing the

expeditionary treasure chest) in the war against Niger, and subsequently appointed as procurator

annonae for the expeditio Gallica in 196.39

At the corps level, primipili of the expeditionary

forces were responsible for army supplies. Primipili were also assigned to logistical duties like

supervising the overseas supply lines during wars, in important harbors like Aquileia.40

Several third-century careers demonstrate the significant role that equites involved in

logistics could play. Some of these men eventually reached the highest equestrian prefectures. An

inscription from Rome dated in the Severan era offers a fine example of an anonymous man

whose career included almost all relevant logistic positions: after having been tribunus militum

and praefectus classis, this man continued his career with procurational posts, procurator ad

alimenta being the first. At the end of his career, he was subsequently ab epistulis, a libellis, a

rationibus, and finally praefectus annonae. It has even been suggested that this man was identical

with Severus‟ powerful praetorian prefect Fulvius Plautianus, but this hypothesis has been

refuted.41

Yet it is striking that the alternative theory requires that Plautianus‟ name was erased

from an inscription from Tripolitana, in which case he would have been praefectus vehiculorum

prior to his praetorian prefecture, a position which the eventual emperor Macrinus also occupied

at one point.42

Another eques involved in logistics who reached a high prefecture was Baebius

Aurelius Iuncinus, who was procurator ad annonam Ostiis and praefectus vehiculorum twice,

37

On the role of the ab epistulis in logistics, see Kehne (2007), 330. 38

CIL 2.4114 = ILS 1140 (Hispania Citerior). 39

AE 1914, 248 = AE 2002, 54 = IlAfr 455 (Africa Proconsularis). On M. Rossius Vitulus, see PIR² R 102; Pflaum

(1960-1961), vol. 3, 593-598, no. 224; Devijver (1976-2001), vol. 2, R 11, with further references. 40

Cf. Kehne (2007), 331. 41

CIL 6.41277 = 14.4468-4470 = ILS 9501 = AE 1960, 163-164 (Roma); see Devijver (1976-2001), vol. 2, inc. 255. 42

AE 1931, 2 = IRT 572 (Tripolitana). See DNP, Band 6, s.v. Fulvius II.10. Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, 643-644, no.

238, doubted whether this inscription referred to Plautianus. On Macrinus as praefectus vehiculorum, see Dio 79, 11,

3.

128

and finally became praefectus Aegypti under Caracalla.43

Perhaps Aurelius Iulianus can also be

added, if the a rationibus et a memoria mentioned in an inscription from Latium is identical with

the praefectus praetorio mentioned in an inscription from Venetia et Histria.44

The career of Fulvius Macrianus maior demonstrates how a convenient combination of

logistically relevant posts could even create the opportunity to claim imperial power. Macrianus

became a rationibus in Egypt under Valerianus. Next, he accompanied this emperor on his

Persian campaign and became responsible for the organization of money and supplies for the

army in the East during this expedition as procurator arcae et praepositus annonae in 259/260.45

After Valerianus had been captured, Ballista offered Macrianus the imperial throne, but

Macrianus allegedly refused and suggested that his sons, Macrianus minor and Quietus, would

become joint emperors. They were proclaimed not much later, with Macrianus maior‟s control

over the imperial treasure and the army supplies in the East – essential sources in wartime – as

the principal base of their power.46

A comparable case emerges in the career of Mussius Aemilianus. After having gone

through the quattuor militiarum, he was appointed praefectus vehiculorum of the three Gallic

provinces during the reign of Philippus Arabs.47

Then, he held the position of procurator of the

three Egyptian ports (Alexandria, Pelusium and Paraetonium) and subsequently of the two ports

in Ostia, still under Philippus. Under Valerianus, Mussius Aemilianus governed Egypt, first as

deputy governor (agens vice praefecti) with two correctores to assist him, and later as praefectus

Aegypti. The fact that he is referred to as dux by the Historia Augusta may indicate that his

responsibilities were restricted to the military when he was agens vice praefecti, while the

43

On L. Baebius Aurelius Iuncinus see PIR² B 13; CIL 10.7580 = ILS 1358 (Sardinia); P. Oxy. 1408; P. Giss. 40;

Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, 678-683, no. 251; Bureth (1988), 491; Bastianini (1988), 512. Although the position

procurator ad annonam Ostiis was a minor procuratorship, its relevance may have increased in certain periods. Iulia

Domna‟s brother-in-law, Iulius Avitus Alexianus, for instance, was procurator ad annonam Ostiis in 193, which

may have been useful for Severus as he marched on Rome. Cf. Birley (2005), 226. 44

On M. Aurelius Iulianus: CIL 14.2463 = CIL 6.1596 (Castrimoenium, Italy); CIL 5.4323 = ILS 1333 (Brixia,

Italy). The praetorian prefect mentioned in the latter inscription was perhaps the same Iulianus who is mentioned as

praefectus praetorio in Cod. Iust. 7, 33, 1, which dates from the joint reign of Severus and Caracalla. 45

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 7, 10, 5-6; Petrus Patricius, Continuator Dio, Excerpta de Sententiis, p. 264, 159.

The interpretation of the Greek title ( ) as a rationibus was

suggested by Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, 928-933, no. 350. 46

According to Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 7, 10, 8, Macrianus refused because his body was deformed;

Zonaras 12, 24, and Petrius Patricius, Excerpta de Sententiis, p. 264, 159, report that he was lame in one leg.

According to HA, Vita Tyr. Trig. 12, 7, he declined because of his old age and his long retirement from the military.

HA, Vita Gall. 1, 3; Vita Tyr. Trig. 12, 12, reports that Macrianus shared the emperorship with his sons, but this

seems incorrect. 47

See CIL 14.170 = ILS 1433 (Ostia, Italy) for his early career; cf. PIR² M 757; PLRE I, Aemilianus 6.

129

correctores carried out the civil-administrative tasks.48

As praefectus, Aemilianus supported the

rival emperors Macrianus and Quietus.49

After their deaths, he was proclaimed emperor himself

in 261, but soon overthrown by dux Aurelius Theodotus and executed by Gallienus.50

Mussius

Aemilianus was thus appointed to positions in which he was responsible for, and had access to,

important (food) supplies in both Egypt and Italy. According to Pflaum, Aemilianus‟ rapid

promotion indicates that he was favored by the emperor Philippus Arabs.51

Philippus may also

have been a specialist in military logistics: Zosimus reports that during Gordianus‟ Persian

campaign in Mesopotamia in 242, Philippus commanded the ships that had to bring supplies to

the emperor‟s army over the Euphrates.52

Military cadre personnel, i.e. primipili, centurions, tribuni and praefecti, were ever more

involved in military logistics as well: they carried out requisitions to feed the armies and continue

the wars.53

They were also increasingly mobilized by civilians to communicate messages to the

emperor and his entourage. Military cadre people communicated the complaints about Cassius

Dio‟s harsh policy as governor of a Pannonian province to the praetorian guard, which forced

Severus Alexander to keep Dio out of Rome in 229, when he was consul ordinarius iterum with

the emperor as his colleague.54

As has been discussed in Chapter 1, under Gordianus III and

Philippus Arabs, villagers of Skaptopara in Thracia and Aragua in Asia Minor respectively, sent

military men instead of an orator to the emperor to bring him petitions – a sign that by the end of

the 230s, the influence of intellectuals had decreased, as is discussed in the next section.

Equites as imperial secretaries

Moreover, as regards legal cases, letters and decrees of the cities, petitions of

individuals and whatever else concerns the administration of the Empire, you

should have helpers and assistants from the equites.55

48

In HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 22, 3, Mussius Aemilianus is called dux. According to PIR² M 757, these correctores held a

superior rank. 49

Mussius Aemilianus‟ support appears from the fact that the coins of Macrianus and Quietus were struck at

Alexandria. Cf. PLRE I, Aemilianus 6. 50

HA, Vita Gall. 4, 1-2; 5, 6; Vita Trig. Tyr. 22, 4; 22, 8; 26, 4; Epitome de Caesaribus 32, 4. 51

Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, 926-927. 52

Zosimus 1, 18, 3. Cf. De Blois (2001), 140-141. 53

Dobson (1974), 432; cf. Dobson (2000), 142; 151-152. 54

On this, see De Blois (2001), 150, with further references. 55

Dio 52, 33, 5. Translation: Millar (1992), 105.

130

The advice which Cassius Dio puts into the mouth of Maecenas as he addresses the emperor

Augustus relates to the author‟s own time and reflects yet another equestrian office close to the

center of power: acting as imperial secretaries. In the early Principate, secretarial posts had been

filled by imperial liberti, but these duties had been gradually transferred to equestrian men which

are distinguished into two groups by Millar: (1) intellectuals, orators and jurists who did not rise

through any recognizable career path but entered the imperial entourage directly, and (2) men

who were promoted to the imperial secretaries after a career of three equestrian military posts,

followed by procurational positions. Millar emphasizes that the liberti were not in the first

instance replaced by equestrian civil servants, but by intellectuals from the Greek and later the

Latin world.56

A good example of this trend is the author Suetonius, who after being selected by

Traianus to sit on the juries of equites who sat in Rome, subsequently was a studiis and a

bibliothecis, perhaps still under Traianus, and later became Hadrianus‟ ab epistulis.57

For such

intellectuals their scholarly reputation was the main recommendation for the imperial posts.

In the course of the second and the early third century, Greek sophists gained rising

prominence at the imperial court, and the function of ab epistulis Graecis turned out to be one of

the chief posts open to them. Of the four rhetors in this post whose lives Philostratus described,

two belong to the period under discussion: Aelius Antipater of Hierapolis (Phrygia) and Aspasius

of Ravenna (Italy).58

Antipater was not only appointed ab epistulis Graecis by Septimius

Severus, but also tutored Caracalla and Geta, thus evidently acquiring prestige in the emperor‟s

entourage and accompanying the imperial family on their journeys. Having also written a huge

number of orations and a biography of Septimius Severus, Antipater attained senatorial rank and

was appointed governor of Bithynia, but was eventually removed for excessive harshness. He

allegedly starved himself to death after the murder of Geta.59

Aspasius, who despite his Italian

56

Millar (1992), 89, points out that some secretarial posts had been held by Greeks of equestrian rank as early as

Claudius‟ reign. Suetonius, Dom., 7, 2, reports that Domitianus „shared certain of the chief officia between libertini

and equites Romani’ (translation Millar). HA, Vita Hadr. 22, 8, is thus incorrect in stating that Hadrianus was the

first emperor to have equites as ab epistulis and a libellis. 57

AE 1953, 73 (Africa Proconsularis). Cf. Millar (1992), 90. On Suetonius, see also Baldwin (1983) and Wallace-

Hadrill (1984). 58

The other two were Alexander from Seleucia (Philostratus, Vitae Sophistarum 2, 5), ab epistulis of Marcus

Aurelius between 169 and 175; and Hadrianus of Tyre (Philostratus, Vitae Sophistarum 2, 10), who was nominated

ab epistulis on his deathbed by Commodus. Cf. Millar (1992), 91-92. 59

On Aelius Antipater, see Philostratus, Vitae Sophistarum 2, 24-26; IEph 2026 = Oliver (1989), no. 244, with

commentary on 471-474. Cf. Bowersock (1969), 53; 55-57; Millar (1992), 92-93; Potter (2004), 78.

131

origins gained fame as a Greek orator, was ab epistulis under one of the Severi and in that

capacity accompanied the emperor to various parts of the Empire.60

Another group came to the fore from the reign of Marcus Aurelius onward: the jurists.

The persons who in the second and third centuries entered the emperor‟s service as jurists did so

as a libellis (in charge of the processing of petitions) or as consilarii (advisers on the consilium).

The appearance of the legally-qualified a libellis is – like the emergence of iudices vice Caesaris

from the reign of Septimius Severus onward – yet another clear sign of the bulk of legal business

with which the emperor had to deal by then.61

The earliest example of a man who owed his career

to his standing as a lawyer was Aurelius Papirius Dionysius, who was a libellis and a

cognitionibus (in charge of the emperor‟s court of law, contributing to judicial investigations),

before he reached the high equestrian prefectures of the annona and subsequently of Egypt.62

Dionysius started his career under Marcus Aurelius and became part of the consilium.63

Well before the Severan period lawyers were co-opted directly into the emperor‟s

consilium, under Severan administration learned jurists rose to the top, with Papinianus, Ulpianus

and Iulius Paulus being the most striking examples.64

Papinianus evidently was a member of a

praetorian prefect‟s consilium and had been advocatus fisci before he became a libellis in the

early part of Septimius Severus‟ reign. Between 205 and 211 he served as praetorian prefect.65

Ulpianus of Tyre (Syria) may have served as assessor on the court of a praetor in Rome in the

early reign of Severus. Late sources record that he was an apprentice of the praetorian prefect

Papinianus and a member of his consilium, and that he was at some stage a libellis. Although the

sources are not the most reliable, Honoré has shown that Ulpianus‟ style indeed corresponds with

60

On Aspasius, see Philostratus, Vitae Sophistarum 2, 33. Potter (2004), 78, assumes he was appointed ab epistulis

Graecis sometime between AD 211 and 216. Cf. Bowersock (1969), 56; 92; Millar (1992), 93. Peachin and Preuss

(1997), 189-191, suggest that (Aspasius) Paternus, praefectus urbi 264-266, descended from Aspasius of Ravenna. 61

On the libelli, see Millar (1992), 240-252. 62

The a cognitionibus personally attended the emperor and accompanied him on his journeys. Millar (1992), 106-

107, points at an a cognitionibus who was with Severus in Asia Minor in 202, one who was with Caracalla in Rome

and Gallia or Germania, and Cledonius, a cognitionibus of Valerianus, who was with him when he was captured by

Shapur. Millar adds that those a cognitionibus from the Severan period of whom we have information, seem to have

had normal equestrian careers. 63

On Aurelius Papirius Dionysius, see IGRR I, no. 135; Dio 73, 13-14; PIR² A 1567; Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 1,

472-476, no. 181; Millar (1992), 94. 64

On direct co-option of lawyers into the consilium, see Digesta 27, 1, 30 (Papinianus). On the lawyers under the

Severan emperors, see Millar (1992), 94-97; Honoré (1994), 19-32; De Blois (2001), 138-141. 65

On Papinianus‟ career, see CIL 6.228 = ILS 2187 (Roma); HA, Vita Carac. 8; Vita Sev. Alex. 25, 6; Digesta 20, 5,

12; 22, 1, 3, 3. According to Peachin (1992), Papinianus may have been a member of the consilium of praetorian

prefect Veturius Macrinus.

132

the style of the subscriptiones written between 205 and 209.66

In 222, Ulpianus was praefectus

annonae and under Severus Alexander he was praefectus praetorio for a brief period, as will be

discussed below in section 3.3.67

Strangely, no actual post of Iulius Paulus is reliably attested. He

seems to have been a member of Papinianus‟ council and he may have been an a cognitionibus. It

is unclear whether he was formally called a consiliarius, nor is there any confirmation of the

Historia Augusta‟s statement that he became praetorian prefect under Severus Alexander. Yet a

series of passages from his writings composed during the reigns of the Severi refer to discussions

within the imperial consilium in which he took part.68

Other examples of high-ranking jurists include Modestinus and Rufinus. Honoré suggests

that a man named Modestinus may have been a libellis in 223, but his solely stylistic arguments

remain disputable.69

He was a iuris peritus, a learned jurist, apppointed to teach the son of the

emperor Maximinus Thrax, according to the Historia Augusta. Modestinus was a pupil of

Ulpianus and he ultimately reached the position of praefectus vigilum. That Modestinus was at

least a renowned lawyer in the reign of Gordianus III emerges from a passage in the Codex

Iustinianus to be dated in AD 239, in which the emperor reminds a petitioner that Modestinus, „a

jurisconsult of no insignificant auctoritas‟ had already sent him a ruling on the same matter.70

Modestinus disappears from the sources about 241.71

The career of a man named Gnaius Licinius Rufinus has been reconstructed from a

number of Greek inscriptions. This Rufinus, who apparently was Paulus‟ student, started his

career under Septimius Severus and seems to have been consiliarius Augusti, ab epistulis

Graecis, and a studiis (an official connected with the emperor‟s judicial activity) respectively.

Thereafter, he may have been a rationibus and a libellis, perhaps as Modestinus‟ predecessor or

66

On Ulpianus‟ early career, see Digesta 4, 2, 9, 3; HA, Vita Pesc. Nig. 7, 4; Vita Sev. Alex. 26, 5-6. Cf. Eutropius,

Breviarium, 8, 23; Festus, Breviarium, 22. His career is discussed by Honoré (2002), 1-36. 67

On Ulpianus as praefectus annonae and praetorian prefect, see Cod. Iust. 8, 37, 4; 4, 65, 4; HA, Vita Sev. Alex. 68,

1. According to HA, Vita Elag. 16, 4, Ulpianus was dismissed by Elagabalus, but it is unclear which position he held

at that time and whether this statement is true. Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 24, 6, seems to be mistaken

when he reports that Elagabalus made Ulpianus praetorian prefect. 68

Paulus as a member of Papinianus‟ council see Digesta 12, 1, 40; for discussions on the imperial consilium in

which Paulus took part see Digesta 4, 4, 38; 14, 5, 8; 32, 27, 1; 36, 1, 76, 1; on Paulus as praetorian prefect, see HA,

Vita Pesc. Niger 7, 4; Vita Sev. Alex. 26, 5; Syme (1991), 216, argues that Paulus probably never was a praetorian

prefect. 69

On the suggestion that Modestinus was a libellis see Honoré (1994), 104-107; cf. Honoré (2002), 33. Millar

(1999) accepts Honoré‟s hypothesis. 70

Cod. Iust. 3, 42, 5: „a non contemnendae auctoritatis iuris consulto‟, cf. Millar (1999), 102. 71

On Modestinus, see PIR² H 112 and M 655; Modestinus as praefectus vigilum: CIL 6.266 (Roma); tutor of

Maximinus Iunior: HA, Vita Max. 27, 5; he may have been procurator in Dalmatia and was Ulpianus‟ pupil (Digesta

47, 2, 52, 20); Cf. Kunkel (1967), 259-261, no. 72.

133

successor, after which he seems to have been accepted into the senate. He was praetor, governor

of Noricum and finally gained consular rank by holding a suffect consulate or adlectio inter

consulares. It has been suggested that Licinius Rufinus was one of the vigintiviri in 238.72

While

others seem to have been a libellis under the Severi and entered the senate in an advanced stage

of their career, which indicates that the Severan emperors were inclined to promote such

intellectuals to senatorial rank, Rufinus is noteworthy in that an inscription set up in Thyatira

explicitly mentions his equestrian rank ( line 3 prior to his consular rank

( line 14).73

Modestinus and Rufinus may have been the last great

jurists who exercised particular influence in the emperors‟ entourage. After that date, probably

even from 230 onward, the role of identifiable legal writers at the emperor‟s side ceased and

learned jurists seemed to have disappeared from the center of power. If Rufinus had indeed been

one of the vigintiviri, his involvement in 238 may have hastened jurists‟ ensuing obscurity in

imperial entourages after the 230s.74

According to De Blois, jurists continued to secure appointments a libellis after about 240

and maintained high a quality of work there, but the style of rescripts changed and they seem no

longer to have written scholarly works like those of Ulpianus. Jurists no longer reached the

highest equestrian posts. De Blois posits that the learned jurists entered the consilia of the iudices

vice Caesaris, the deputies of the emperor who took over judicial functions of the Augusti from

the reign of Septimius Severus, as discussed in Chapter 1. He argues that the rise of those

deputies may have contributed to the relative lowering of the learned jurists‟ status. Furthermore,

he claims that patronage and recommendation structures no longer worked in favor of the, mainly

Rome-based, learned jurists.75

It is not until Traianus or Hadrianus that we find examples of Millar‟s second category:

men who were promoted from an equestrian career to become imperial secretaries. Obviously,

such men were property-owners of some standing, who may be presumed to have had the usual

72

On Rufinus, see TAM V.2, no. 984-988 = IGRR IV, no. 1215-1218, and an inscription published by Hermann

(1997), 111. Rufinus‟ career is reevaluated in Millar (1999). Rufinus as Paulus‟ pupil, see Digesta 40, 13, 4. On

Rufinus as vigintivir in 238, see Herrmann (1997), 121, and Millar (1999), 96. 73

Other examples of a libellis who entered the senate under the Severi were P. Aelius Coeranus (Dio 77, 5, 3-5; PIR²

A 161), an eques who became consul suffectus circa 212 (cf. Leunissen (1989), 173), and M. Ulpius Ofellius

Theodorus (PIR V 560; RE Suppl. 14, 942, s.v. Ulpius 44), a libellis under Caracalla (SEG 37, 1186, line 11) and

consular governor of Cappadocia under Elagabalus. Cf. Millar (1999), 95; 97. 74

Millar (1992), 97, identifies Aurelius Arcadius Charisius, magister libellorum at about 300 AD, as the next

identifiable legal writer at court. 75

De Blois (2001), 147-149.

134

Graeco-Roman upper class literary education, but who were not promoted into the imperial

entourage on the basis of their cultural and scholarly background, as the intellectuals did.76

A

man who went through the full range of military and civilian posts before becoming ab epistulis

under Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, was Varius Clemens from Noricum. After a long

succession of military posts, he held a series of provincial procuratorships, culminating in the

procuratorship of Belgica and the two Germaniae, before he was finally appointed ab epistulis.77

Millar compares Clemens‟ background with that of other ab epistulis to striking results. Since the

concerns of most secretarial posts was essentially verbal, literary men dominated these

positions.78

In Clemens‟ days, the careers of the military upstarts Pertinax and Valerius

Maximianus seem to have been furthered, but so were those of three former senatorial legati

legionis: Claudius Fronto, Martius Verus and Avidius Cassius, who were rapidly promoted to

militarily important governorships of consular provinces.79

The flourishing careers of these five

men confirms Birley‟s hypothesis that the ab epistulis was in a position to recommend men to the

emperor and that the appointment of Clemens as ab epistulis was thus vitally important to them.80

Unfortunately, the evidence on the careers of those who served as imperial secretaries is

very slight and becomes ever more scattered from the late second century onwards. Noteworthy

is the career of Marcius Claudius Agrippa. According to Dio‟s account, he was born a slave and

became advcocatus fisci under Septimius Severus. He was exiled by this emperor and later

recalled by Caracalla, who made him a cognitionibus and ab epistulis circa 215. Agrippa was

then enrolled in the ordo senatorius (adlectio inter praetorios). Under Macrinus, Agrippa

allegedly became governor of Pannonia Inferior and later of Dacia and Moesia Inferior.81

Agrippa‟s career is a fine example of the potential advantages of being close to the emperor as his

secretary. Why a man who was exiled by Severus was taken back in service by Caracalla and

appointed at posts which involved presence in the emperor‟s entourage is of course an interesting,

though inexplicable, question.

76

On this group, see Millar (1992), 101-110. 77

Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 1, 368-373, no. 156. 78

Millar (1992), 105-106. 79

On Claudius Fronto, see PIR² C 874; on Martius Verus, see PIR² M 348; on Avidius Cassius, see PIR² A 1402. See

also Alföldy (1977), passim, on them. 80

Birley (1992), 23; 27; 48 no. 8, in which Birley argues that the office of ab epistulis was an important center of

information on possible candidates for all kind of posts, the most important broker at court; cf. De Blois (2001), 149. 81

Dio 79, 13, 2-4. Whether he was identical with the Marcius Agrippa mentioned in HA, Vita Car. 6, 7 as

commander of the fleet and one of the accomplices in the murder of Caracalla is unclear. Cf. Jones (1942), who

thinks Agrippa had no naval career. On Marcius Agrippa, see PIR² M 224.

135

After circa 240, information on imperial secretaries becomes scarce, if there is any

information at all. That the imperial secretaries seem to have vanished from the earth is an

inexplicable phenomenon. A passage from Philostratus demonstrates that under Marcus Aurelius

the ab epistulis accompanied the emperor when he resided in Sirmium between military

campaigns in Pannonia in the 170s.82

Changing priorities, as discussed in Chapter 1, may have

caused the emperors after 240 to spend less time on non-military matters and certainly affected

that the emperors encountered more military specialists than sophists and lawyers. The fact that

even Marcus Aurelius rejected one case due to his military activity may further imply that

handling legal matters was eventually no longer self-evident for emperors on campaign.83

Whether imperial secretaries were eventually no longer taken along on imperial journeys and

expeditions, or became invisible within a more bureaucratic administrative system in the second

half of the third century, is a problem which cannot be solved for lack of evidence.

In conclusion we can say that some of the high equestrians indeed played an ever increasing role

in third-century imperial administration in various spheres of power. This trend opened up

opportunities for those equites involved, which no members of the ordo had experienced in

previous centuries, and this clearly affected their level of power positively.

Sophists and jurists were the first who saw their opportunities at court increase. Their rise

started under Marcus Aurelius and lasted until circa 230, perhaps somewhat longer – until 240 –

in the case of the jurists. Yet after the age of the Severi, the dominant role of these intellectuals

within the imperial council seems to have been assumed by other people at court: specialists in

military tactics and logistics, in fiscal administration, taxation and requisition. As emperors

visited Rome less frequently, military men and administrators who were present in the emperor‟s

entourage or met him and his leading advisers in the field gained more influence. Such men could

then promoted careers of people who helped them in their work, i.e. military cadre personnel. The

military cadres consisting of centurions, primipili, tribuni, and praefecti, who were in a position

to influence the soldiers and whose role in the fiscal and provincial administration became ever

more important, could no longer go ignored in imperial appointment policies. The situation of

82

Philostratus, Vitae Sophistarum , 2, 5. On this matter, see also Millar (1992), 5-6. 83

Millar (1992), 6, citing an Athenian inscription on which Marcus rejects a case, stating: „in order that after so long

he shall not have to wait for the opportune moments in which it will be possible for me to judge the cases which need

a decision precisely at the time of our military activity.‟

136

crisis, in which Varius Clemens had been able to further the careers of military experienced men

like Pertinax and Maximianus during Marcus Aurelius‟ wars in the Danube regions, became a

permanent state of affairs from 230 onward. From those days, the power of militarily-skilled men

seems to have gradually improved at the expense of non-military intellectuals and elite, both

equestrians and senators. The equestrians, however, did not appropriate senators‟ roles in the

central administration of the Empire either suddenly or completely. The process lasted several

decades, at the end of which senators were still not ousted everywhere.

3.2. The status of high-ranking equestrians in the third century

These changes in power must have affected the status of at least those high-ranking equestrians

who personally increased their power, and may even have elevated the status of the ordo as a

whole. Again, however, for modern scholars it is much more complex to detect these

consequences for their status than to perceive expansions in the spheres of their power. Still,

some observations can be made on the matter.

First of all, intellectuals. The sophists and jurists increased their power as a result of their

high status. Almost all these men originated from the highest circles at urban and provincial

levels, and their education and scholarly reputation drew them into the emperor‟s entourage.

Their verbal and intellectual abilities qualified them exceptionally well to perform secretarial

duties in the emperor‟s service, as long as the emperors stayed based in Rome and spent most of

their time carrying out non-military duties.84

Consequently, it is no surprise that from the 230s,

when the emperors were obliged to focus their attention ever more on military crises, the role of

the intellectuals in imperial administration changed. Intellectuals did not immediately and

entirely disappear from the emperor‟s entourage, as for instance the role of Plotinus and his circle

during the reign of Gallienus demonstrates, but their active involvement in the central

administration of the Empire was drastically reduced.85

These intellectuals thus represented a

category within the equester ordo of notables who were defined by their (landed) property and

who reached their high positions within the emperor‟s service through education and status at the

84

Cf. Millar (1992), 97, who argues that the role which these intellectuals, orators and jurists „played at the

emperor‟s side was an important aspect of the capture of the emperor by the ruling circles of the provincial cities.‟ 85

On Gallienus and the circle of Plotinus, see for instance Porphyrius, Vita Plotini 12; cf. De Blois, (1976), 145-147,

and 185-193; on Plotinus and his sympathizers turning their backs on practical politics, see De Blois (1989); De

Blois (1994), 172-174.

137

local level.86

Such intellectuals could reach the highest-ranking equestrian prefectures, which

involved a high level of status, or they could even be elevated to senatorial rank.

Alongside these eminent equites another group arose that became increasingly important

within the ordo in the third century, namely military professionals who had risen from soldier

ranks to equestrian rank.87

They owed their high status in the emperor‟s service to experience and

participation in imperial power. The equestrian census which had hindered entry into the

equestrian order for such men in the first and second centuries was apparently no longer an

obstacle.88

What began in the early third century as a minority eventually became the dominant

power circle among the equestrians, a development which is most clearly noticeable if we

consider the sort of men who reached the imperial throne between AD 268 and 284. High

military commands and a growing number of provincial governorships were gradually conferred

upon high equestrian men instead of senators. Yet until the 260s these transformations were

presented as temporary solutions, for equestrians were appointed as agentes vice. The increased

power of these equites was not formalized and thus not officially acknowledged. This may have

obscured the growth of such equites‟ power for other groups involved in imperial administration,

both at the central and the local level – and possibly even to these equites themselves – and it

may have impeded, or at least delayed, an increase of these equites‟ status.

Another factor may have distorted on the perception of changes in the ordo‟s relative

status: in the course of the third century, especially from the 250s onward, high-ranking equites

were promoted to senatorial rank less often. The limited number of homines novi detectable in the

second half of the third century may indicate that senatorial status had become less attractive to

men in such high equestrian posts, or that emperors no longer saw any need to elevate them to

senatorial rank. One could also argue that emperors did not consider these military men

appropriate candidates to enter the senate. Yet second-century examples of men with a similar

military background and career who were accepted into the senate seem to refute this argument.

Eventually, however, increasing status followed increased power for these equestrians

involved in military matters and provincial government. This process started low-profile with the

extension of the perfectissimate in gradual stages. As Pflaum has demonstrated, a growing

number of equestrian officers were awarded with the title vir perfectissimus instead of vir

86

On the role of intellectuals at the local level, see also Slootjes (2009). 87

Cf. Christol (1999). 88

Cf. Heil (2008b), 749.

138

egregius.89

Under the Severi, the title was reserved for the high equestrian prefects (the praefecti

annonae, vigilum, and Aegypti) and imperial secretaries. In the reign of Gordianus III, the title

was also bestowed upon a praefectus classis and a procurator of Mauretania Caesariensis. From

the 260s, the title perfectissimus also went to equestrian provincial praesides and even to a dux.90

That from the late 260s onward the emperors themselves were mostly equestrians was probably a

result from the rise in status of such military equestrian upstarts. Only under the emperor

Constantine, this process of elevation of status for high equestrians came to an end, as he granted

all high equestrians senatorial status.91

3.3. The praefecti praetorio: a case study

A case study on the power and status of the praetorian prefects may yield additional or more

specific insights about the developing position of those members of the ordo equester whom

third-century changes affected. Admittedly, the case of the praefectus praetorio is in a certain

way unrepresentative of all high-ranking equestrians, as it does not illustrate a shift from

senatorial to equestrian power: from the establishment of the position in 2 BC the post of

commander of the cohortes praetorianae, whose basic function it was to guard the emperor‟s life,

had been assigned to men of equestrian rank. Yet, as it is the only equestrian position on which

we have evidence of its holders‟ identities and authorities on a more or less continuous basis, this

case study can display the process of the increasing power and status in more detail. Furthermore,

the case of the praetorian prefect can demonstrate how the changing position of the equestrian

officer affected his relation with the senatorial elite and the emperors, the other main power

groups within the administration of the Empire.

The uniqueness of the praetorian prefecture, combined with the fact that we are relatively

well informed on the prefects‟ identities has inspired many scholars to examine both the

officeholders and the office in itself during the Principate.92

Their works have been invaluable for

89

Pflaum (1970). Just as senators adopted the epithet clarissimus to express their rank, equestrian official developed

a hierarchy of epithets: egregius, perfectissimus, eminentissimus. Vir eminentissimus was the normal and exclusive

title of the praetorian prefect until the reign of Septimius Severus. Cf. Salway (2006), 119. On the inflation in titles

and the extension of the eminentissimate to prefects of the second rank under Severus and Caracalla, see Salway

(2006), 123-124. 90

See Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, 624, note 10, for a list of perfectissimi viri in the third century. Cf. Pflaum (1970),

177-178. 91

Salway (2006), 132-135. 92

Mommsen (1899), 267-269, and Stein (1963), passim, discussed certain aspects of the prefecture in their studies of

Roman law and the equestrian order respectively, whereas Durry (1938, second edition 1968) and Passerini (1939)

dealt with the praetorian prefecture and its holders incidentally in their studies of the praetorian cohorts in the 1930s.

139

the examination on the position of the praetorian prefects in the period AD 193 to 284 which

follows.

The power of the praetorian prefects: Military authority

From the establishment of the office, the primary duty of the praetorian prefects was of course to

protect the emperor and the imperial family. Some examples indicate that this still fell within

their range of duties in the third century. For instance, Flavius Genialis, prefect under Didius

Iulianus, was with the emperor until the end of his life.93

Genialis‟ final fate is not recorded, but it

is not unlikely that he died while attempting to guard the emperor. Antiochianus and an unnamed

colleague, praetorian prefects under Elagabalus, allegedly pacified the praetorians when they

rioted, fearing that the emperor would harm Caesar Severus Alexander. Antiochianus persuaded a

small number of praetorians who had come to the palace not to kill the emperor, while the other

prefect was sent to the praetorians‟ camp and convinced them to spare Elagabalus. Antiochianus

and his colleague may also have been the anonymous prefects who perished with Elagabalus in

222.94

If we may believe Zosimus, Severus Alexander‟s prefects found themselves in the

presence of his mother Iulia Mamaea in the palace after the emperor had died; they were killed

along with the empress.95

In their capacity as bodyguards, praetorian prefects regularly

accompanied emperors on their journeys. Third-century praetorian prefects are attested regularly

as imperial comites, joining emperors on military expeditions. An inscription from Rome

demonstrates that Plautianus was comes of Septimius Severus and Caracalla on all their

expeditions until his downfall in 205, and Dio suggests that Papinianus was in Britannia with

Howe (1942) was the first to devote a monograph to the history and development of the pre-Constantinian

prefecture. He was mainly concerned with how the office, in origin purely military, became a purely civil one under

Constantine. While Howe‟s extensive prosopography of officeholders and his other appendices, with which he

amplified and refined our knowledge on the third-century prefecture, won high praise, his interpretation of the

constitutional position of the prefect of the praetorian guard was not that well received. Cf. Giles (1943); Reinhold

(1943); Reinmuth (1944); Last (1944); Lewis (1945). On the praetorian prefecture during the Principate, see also RE

22 (1954), s.v. Praefectus praetorio, 2391-2426 (in 2426-2502, Enßlin deals with the prefecture in Late Antiquity);

Chastagnol (1970) with a list of prefects between AD 202 and 326; Millar (1992), 122-131; Absil (1997/1998),

dealing with the prefects from Augustus to Commodus; De Blois (2001), focusing on the role of jurists as prefects;

Eich (2005), 211-257. Chastagnol (1968) and Barnes (1992) specifically deal with the prefecture after AD 284. A list

of known praefecti praetorio between AD 193 and 284 can be found in Appendix 3. 93

HA, Vita Did. Iul. 3, 1; 8, 6-8. 94

HA, Vita Elag. 14-15; cf. Dio 79, 21, 1. On Antiochianus, see also PIR² A 738. If Antiochianus was indeed one of

the prefects who died along with Elagabalus, he cannot have been identical with the Antiochianus to whom Severus

Alexander addressed Cod. Iust. 6, 35, 3 in AD 222. 95

Zosimus 1, 13, 2.

140

Severus and his sons.96

Both Macrinus and Oclatinius Adventus seem to have been present as

prefects in Mesopotamia when Caracalla was killed, joining him on his Parthian expedition. A

prefect of the guard, possibly Macrinus or Adventus, also accompanied Caracalla on his journey

through Thracia in 214.97

Elagabalus‟ prefect, …atus, whose full name is unknown, is attested as

comes et amicus fidissimus of the emperor, although it cannot be determined whether he was

comes during his prefecture or prior to it.98

Some references indicate that even when, after the Severan era, praetorian prefects were

increasingly sent on assignment detached from the emperors, as will be discussed below, prefects

occasionally still found themselves in the imperial entourage. Successianus, praetorian prefect of

Valerianus according to Zosimus, is said to have helped the ruler in the restoration of Antiocheia,

which was ruined either by an earthquake or during a Persian attack. He probably was the

who was captured by the Persians along with the emperor.99

Not long after Valerianus

had been captured, Gallienus promoted his praefectus vigilum Volusianus to the rank of

praefectus praetorio. Both the emperor and Volusianus were in Rome when they were colleagues

as consules ordinarii in 261, and it is likely that Volusianus regularly was a member of the

imperial entourage during the next few years, when Gallienus spent most of his time in Italy.100

When the emperor left the capital to fight the Goths and Heruli at the end of 266, he left Rome in

the hands of Volusianus, who then became praefectus urbi. Heraclianus, who succeeded

Volusianus as praetorian prefect, was present in Gallienus‟ entourage when the emperor returned

to Italy to put down the revolt of Aureolus. Yet he became an example of a disloyal prefect, as

several sources attest that he was the one who instigated the murder of Gallienus.101

The bond between an emperor and his praetorian prefect was based on loyalty. On

occasion, an emperor retained in office a prefect who was installed by his predecessor, as

Septimius Severus allegedly did with Flavius Iuvenalis and Diocletian with Aristobulus, but

96

Plautianus: CIL 6.1074 = ILS 456 = AE 1954, 245 (Roma): „[…] comitis per omnes expeditiones eorum’.

Papinianus: Dio 77, 14, 5-6. 97

Macrinus and Adventus in Mesopotamia: Dio 79, 3-5; 79, 14; Herodianus 4, 12-14. Thracia: Dio 78, 16, 7;

Herodianus 4, 8, 1; HA, Vita Carac. 5, 8. See also Halfmann (1986), 224. 98

CIL 6.41190 = 6.3839a = 6.31776a = ILS 1329 = AE 2003, 182 (Roma). It has been suggested that this prefect

…atus was identical with T. Messius Extricatus, but this conjecture has been rejected by Salway (1997). 99

Res Gestae Divi Saporis 11, translation Frye (1984), 372. 100

Halfmann (1986), 237-238, on Gallienus‟ presence in Italy. The main part of Volusianus‟ career can be deduced

from CIL 10.1706 (Arretium, Italy), probably erected circa 261. Cf. HA, Vita Gall. 1, 2. On Volusianus‟ career, see

also section 4.2. 101

HA, Gall. 13-14; Zosimus 1, 40, 2-3; Zonaras 12, 25. See also Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 289-292.

141

usually an emperor personally selected his praetorian prefect(s).102

Trust seems to have been of

overriding importance in the emperor‟s selection process, and even appears to have overruled a

candidate‟s experience and background. As the only man who was allowed to be armed in the

emperor‟s presence, a prefect could easily become involved in political intrigues. A crisis of

loyalty between the emperor and his praetorian prefect meant the end of one of them. Aemilius

Laetus, for example, engineered the death of Commodus and the election of Pertinax in 193. He

overplayed his hand by betraying Pertinax as well: Pertinax‟ successor Didius Iulianus replaced

him and put him to death soon afterward.103

Literary sources mention a split between Septimius

Severus and Plautianus, caused by an incident in 203. According to Dio, Severus was displeased

at the large number of statues of Plautianus, and ordered that some of them were to be melted

down, which caused the rumor that the prefect had been overthrown. The Historia Augusta

reports that Severus declared Plautianus a public enemy and that he destroyed Plautianus‟ statues

after the prefect had set up his own statue among the statues of Severus‟ kinsmen. Although the

two were reconciled by the time Severus returned to Rome in 204, the damage could not be

repaired completely and a final split between the emperor and his prefect produced Plautianus‟

death in January 205.104

About a decade later, Macrinus‟ betrayed and murdered Caracalla, thus

becoming the first praetorian prefect who was acclaimed emperor. Most sources state that the

emperor Philippus, praetorian prefect under Gordianus III, was also involved in the latter‟s

death.105

Heraclianus‟ disloyalty toward Gallienus mentioned above, was punished mercilessly by

Claudius Gothicus, who discarded him, after which Heraclianus committed suicide.106

In 284,

Flavius Aper, prefect under Carus and later under Numerianus, was accused of the latter‟s death

and killed by Numerianus‟ imperial successor Diocletian.107

Because loyalty to and mutual trust with the emperor were essential to the prefectship, it is no

surprise that emperors regularly chose friends or relatives as their praetorian prefects. Third-

102

Flavius Iuvenalis: HA, Vita Sev. 6, 5. Aristobulus: Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 39, 14; cf. Ammianus

Marcellinus 23, 1, 1. Perhaps this was also the case with Veturius Macrinus, who was appointed praetorian prefect

by Didius Iulianus as a peace gesture to Severus, according to HA, Vita Did. Iul. 7, 4. However, it is unclear whether

this appointment was confirmed by Severus. See Howe (1942), 68-69. 103

Dio 73, 22; 74, 1; 74, 6-9; 74, 16; Herodianus 1, 17; 2, 1-3; HA, Vita Comm. 17, 1; Vita Pert. 4-5; 10, 9; Vita Did.

Iul. 6, 2. 104

Dio 76, 16, 2; HA, Vita Sev. 14, 5-6. 105

HA, Vita Gord. 29-30; Zosimus 1, 18; Zonaras 12, 18. See Potter (1990), 204-212, on the confused tradition. 106

Zonaras 12, 25. Potter (2004), 264-267, suggests that Heraclianus was sent on expedition in the East by Claudius

in 270 and committed suicide after failing to restore Roman authority there. 107

HA, Vita Car. 12-13; 15, 4; Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus, 38, 4-6; 39, 14; Eutropius, Breviarium, 9, 18-

20; Zonaras 12, 30-31.

142

century examples include Priscus and Florianus, and perhaps Plautianus and Papinianus.

According to the Historia Augusta, Pupienus chose an uncle (patruus), Pinarius Valens, as his

prefect. The same source states that Gordianus III sought to replace Philippus as prefect with his

relative Maecius Gordianus at the end of his reign. The inclusion of these examples, even if they

are not all historically correct, shows that for both the author and his audience the appointment of

relatives was plausible. The reason for this practice was evident: a relative had a natural bond

with the emperor and could thus be assumed a loyal ally. Occasionally, however, it happened the

other way around: a prefect could be included in the imperial family. Septimius Severus included

Plautianus in the domus divina by making him Caracalla‟s father-in-law. Timesitheus became the

emperor Gordianus III‟s own father-in-law, as did Flavius Aper, prefect under Numerianus.108

To further reduce the chance of abuse of power, emperors generally appointed two

praetorian prefects to perform the prefecture simultaneously. At the beginning of the third

century, this certainly still was common practice: Genialis and Tullius Crispinus were colleagues

under Didius Iulianus, and Plautianus had Aemilius Saturninus as his colleague during Septimius

Severus‟ reign. It is generally assumed that Plautianus was sole prefect from the day Saturninus

died very soon after his appointment.109

Papinianus seems to have had Maecius Laetus and then

Valerius Patruinus as colleagues.110

Under Caracalla, Oclatinius Adventus and Macrinus may

have divided the military and non-military tasks of the prefecture, as the former was a vir

militaris and the latter a juridically skilled bureaucrat.111

Macrinus as emperor chose two

militarily experienced prefects, Iulianus and Nestor. As has been noted above, the literary

evidence attests that under Elagabalus there were two simultaneously operating prefects,

Antiochianus and his anonymous colleague. Severus Alexander allegedly appointed Ulpianus as

a third prefect over Flavianus and Chrestus in a supervisory role. Later, Ulpianus had them put to

108

On Priscus, brother of Philippus, see Zos. 1, 19, 2; on Plautianus as kinsman of Septimius Severus, see

Herodianus 3, 10, 6; on Plautianus as Caracalla‟s father-in-law, see Dio 77, 1, 2; Herodianus 3, 10, 7; on Papinianus

as relative of Iulia Domna, see HA, Vita Carac. 8, 2; on Florianus, brother of Tacitus, see HA, Vita Tac. 14, 1; 17, 4:

Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 36, 2; on Pinarius Valens, kinsman of Pupienus, see HA, Vita Max.-Balb. 4, 4;

5, 5; on Maecius Gordianus, relative of Gordianus, see HA, Vita Gord. 30, 1; on Timesitheus, father-in-law of

Gordianus, see HA, Gord. 23, 6; Zosimus 1, 17, 2; on Aper as father-in-law of Numerianus, see HA, Vita Car. 12, 1.

In some cases, prefects acted as tutors of young Caesares or Augusti: Papinianus is attested as Geta‟s and Caracalla‟s

tutor (HA, Vita Car. 8, 3) and Silvanus, if he was indeed praetorian prefect, was entrusted with the care of Gallienus‟

son Saloninus in Cologne. See Bleckmann (1992), 245, with further references. On Silvanus as praetorian prefect,

see Howe (1942), 81, no. 50; König (1981), 47; Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1075. 109

Dio 76, 14, 2, accuses Plautianus of Saturninus‟ death. 110

Howe (1942), 72-72. 111

On Oclatinius Adventus‟ career, see also section 4.1; on Macrinus‟ career, see later in this section.

143

death and became sole prefect.112

The last pairs of prefects can be found in the early 240s under

Gordianus III: Timesitheus and Priscus, and finally Priscus and Philippus.113

From the reign of

Philippus Arabs onward, there is very little evidence pointing to pairs of prefects. Valerianus and

Gallienus may each have had their own prefect or perhaps even prefects, but unfortunately the

evidence does not yield definite conclusions.

Along with their primary task of guarding the emperor and commanding the praetorian

cohorts, both in times of peace and mobilized in battles, the praetorian prefects occasionally

commanded additional troops. This practice started as early as the end of the first century AD.114

When an emperor did not want to leave a crucial military expedition to a provincial governor, and

he could not lead the troops in person, it frequently was the praetorian prefect who appeared as

commander-in-chief of a field army and who held the title of supreme commander vice principis.

In the third century, there are plenty of cases in which a praefectus praetorio acted as commander

of large military units, even (detachments of) legions. In 218, for example, Macrinus‟ praetorian

prefect Ulpius Iulianus was apparently commanding troops in Syria when Elagabalus attempted

to seize imperial power. The sources disagree on whether Iulianus acted on his own initiative or

by orders of Macrinus. Iulianus‟ soldiers deserted to Elagabalus, cut off their commander‟s head

and sent it back to Macrinus.115

In the 240s, when the Sassanids invaded Mesopotamia under

Shapur I, a huge army marched to the East under Timesitheus, guard prefect of Gordianus III.116

As discussed in section 3.1, Timesitheus had gained experience as military chief under Severus

Alexander, when he acted as deputy governor of Germania Inferior and commanded the legions

XXX Ulpia Victrix and I Minervia.117

If we may believe the Historia Augusta, Timesitheus was

rather good in communicating with military men and a very capable army commander, and so

112

Dio 80, 2, 2, p. 480-481; Zosimus 1, 11, 2-3; Zonaras 12, 15. See Honoré (2002), 30-32; 35-36, with further

references. 113

Howe (1942), 78-80, supplying further references. Cf. Körner (2002), 55-57; 72-74. 114

Cornelius Fuscus, prefect under Domitianus, commanded an army on the Dacian front: Suetonius, Domit. 6, 1;

Dio 67, 6, 5-6; Eutropius, Breviarium, 7, 23; Orosius 7, 10, 4. Marcius Turbo as supreme commander in Pannonia

and Dacia under Hadrianus (circa AD 119): Dio 69, 18; HA, Vita Hadr. 6, 7; 7, 3. 115

Dio 79, 31; Herodianus 5, 4; HA, Vita Macr. 10, 1-3; Howe (1942), 26. Ulpius Iulianus probably commanded

(troops from) legio II Parthica, Rome‟s strategic reserve which was usually stationed in Castra Albana in Italy.

Iulianus‟ colleague Nestor apparently was in Syria at that time as well, as Dio (80, 3, 4) reports that he was killed

there by Elagabalus soon after Macrinus‟ death. It is not recorded, however, whether he acted as commander of

troops as well. 116

HA, Vita Gord. 26-27, 3. 117

On this combined appointment, see Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, no. 317, 815-816.

144

was de facto even more powerful than his son-in-law Gordianus III.118

After Timesitheus died,

his successors Priscus and Philippus became Gordianus‟ greatest deputies during the disastrous

campaign against the Persians in the winter of 243/244.119

Valerianus‟ prefect Successianus thus

fought the Persians in the presence of the emperor, as they were captured together in 260. Yet

Ballista, who may have been his colleague, is said to have campaigned successfully against the

Persians as well. He clearly operated elsewhere, was not caught and defeated the enemy soon

after.120

Ten years later, praefectus vigilum Placidianus, who was commanding an army

detachment in Gallia that had been sent against the Goths or the Gallic empire or against both by

Claudius, was promoted to the position of praetorian prefect by Aurelianus. Considering the fact

that the inscription mentioning Placidianus as prefect was found in Gallia, he obviously did not

resign his command immediately.121

In 282, Probus‟ prefect Carus was commanding troops in

Raetia when he was acclaimed emperor, while Probus was in Sirmium following a stay in Rome

to celebrate a triumph after having subdued mutinies on the Rhine and in Britain.122

According to

the Historia Augusta, Carus was trained as a general (dux) by Probus himself.123

The legal basis for such military commands cannot be determined and it is not settled

whether the praetorian prefects of the third century held a general command over the Roman

army.124

Moreover, it is unclear whether Italic troops were under the praetorian prefect‟s

command. Dio makes Maecenas so advise Augustus, but, as is well known, whether this reflected

118

HA, Vita Gord. 28. 119

Zosimus 1, 18; Zonaras 12, 18; Körner (2002), 72-74, for further references. IGRR 3, 1033 (Palmyra, AD

242/243), most probably refers to Priscus and demonstrates that he already was praefectus praetorio under

Gordianus. However, it cannot be determined whether he already held the position when Timesitheus was still alive

or only after his death. Körner (55-56), suggests that Priscus was in Palmyra in those years to make preparations for

Gordianus‟ expedition against the Persians. Cf. Howe (1942), 109. 120

Successianus: Zosimus 1, 32, 1-2; cf. Res Gestae Divi Saporis 11, translation Frye (1984), 372; Ballista: HA, Vita

Val. 4, 4; Vita Trig. Tyr. 12, 1; 18; Zonaras 12, 23 (in which he is called Callistus). It is doubtful whether Ballista

already was praetorian prefect under Valerianus, as he is only referred to as „praefectus‟ in HA, Trig. Tyr. 12, 1; 18,

13. According to Desbordes-Ratti (2000), 94, he was not. 121

According to CIL 12.2228 = ILS 569 (Gallia Narbonensis, AD 269), Placidianus was in charge of vexillationes

and equites as well as praepositi et ducenarii protectores. CIL 12.1551 (Gallia Narbonensis) mentions Placidianus as

praefectus praetorio and is dated either 270 or 273. 122

Triumph of Probus: HA, Vita Prob. 19; acclamation of Carus and death of Probus: HA, Vita Prob. 21; Zonaras 12,

29. See Kreucher (2003), 183, with further references. 123

HA, Vita Prob. 22, 3. 124

Eich (2005), 214-215, points out that there is no evidence for a general command under the praetorian prefect. He

argues that it is unlikely that it existed before the second half of the third century and that the information offered by

sources for the second half of the period under discussion are too scanty to draw conclusions on this matter. Howe

(1942), 25-26, asserts that such army commands originally were special delegations for particular campaigns. Cf. RE

22 (1954), s.v. praefectus praetorio, 2409ff. Howe‟s detection of a tendency toward a more general delegation in the

third century is controversial. See Eich (2005), 215, note 3.

145

the historical reality of the early third century, or a suggestion for a reform by Dio, is unclear.125

From the reign of Septimius Severus the Italic troops included the Vigiles, the equites singulares,

the troops in the Castra Peregrina, legio II Parthica, and the fleets which were based at Misenum

and Ravenna.126

It is generally accepted that praetorian prefect commanded the soldiers of the

Castra Peregrina, but there is no evidence that the Vigiles and their commander, the praefectus

vigilum, were subordinate to him.127

The fleets and legion II Parthica seem occasionally to have

fought under the prefect‟s command. Didius Iulianus sent Crispinus to secure the fleet at Ravenna

by in 193, and Macrinus may have commanded the legio II Parthica during Caracalla‟s Parthian

campaign in 216. By the time Caracalla was murdered, however, the command over II Parthica

was no longer in Macrinus‟ hands, as Triccianus is reported as this legion‟s praefectus at that

point.128

This indicates that the praetorian prefect had no permanent command over the legion.

For now, it seems safe to argue that the praetorian prefect was the highest-ranking soldier in Italy

in the third century, but that he was not necessarily the formal commander of all Italic troops.129

Eich argues that a formal subordination was unnecessary: in effect, the praetorian prefect was the

obvious man to lead military operations in Italy if rapid intervention was desired.130

After all, no

other commander could undermine the prefect‟s position in Italy by virtue of prestige. The only

imperial of higher rank was the city prefect, whose authority was limited to the city of Rome.

It is noteworthy that most examples of praetorian prefects acting as commander-in-chief

of a field army date from the second half of the third century. By then, there were of course more

active field armies, though we must keep in mind that the available evidence on this period,

mainly non-contemporary historiographical sources, which are themselves frequently excerpts of

other historical works, emphasize the military events of those decades, which may have distorted

our perceptions. Yet, the number of prefects who were appointed before 240 with evident

military experience is not high. Genialis, prefect of Didius Iulianus, had probably been tribunus

125

Dio 52, 24, 3. 126

The urban cohorts, which were originally placed under the command of the praefectus urbi, may have been

passed into the control of the praetorian prefect in the second century. Yet, they seem to have been commanded by

the city prefect during the reign of Caracalla, as the resistance of the urban cohorts to the praetorians sent to kill city

prefect Fabius Cilo (Dio 78, 4, 2-5) demonstrates. Cf. Howe (1942), 22-23. 127

Eich (2005), 215-216, with further references. 128

Crispinus securing the fleet: HA, Vita Did. Iul. 6, 3-4. Triccianus commanding II Parthica: Dio 79, 13, 4; HA,

Vita Car. 6, 6. According to Eich (2005), 216, the reference to a soldier of II Parthica as strator of the praetorian

prefect in CIL 6.3408 (Roma) is the only sign of permanent subordination of this legion to the prefect. 129

See also Nicols (1988), who argues that the praetorian prefects played an important role as patroni in Italy and

were therefore mentioned among men of senatorial rank at the Album of Canusium. 130

Eich (2005), 216.

146

of a (praetorian) cohort in 185, but that is all we know of his career.131

Caracalla‟s prefect

Oclatinius Adventus was obviously a vir militaris, whereas his colleague Macrinus allegedly

endured regular mocking from Caracalla of his lack of military experience and bravery.132

As

princeps of the Castra Peregrina Adventus commanded the frumentarii, who functioned as a sort

of secret police in Rome. According to Dio, Ulpius Iulianus and Iulianus Nestor, Macrinus‟

prefects, had served as principes peregrinorum under Septimius Severus or Caracalla as well.

Thus they had a similar military background.133

It is noteworthy that all three of them are

recorded as accompanying their emperors on military expeditions and may have commanded

field armies during these campaigns. Then there is Comazon, who started his career as a soldier

in Thracia during the reign of Commodus and was commander of legio III Gallica in Syria in

218, before he became Elagabalus‟ praetorian prefect.134

Although very little is known of the

career of almost half of the prefects appointed between 193 and 240, it may be concluded that

military experience was no prerequisite: the appointments of jurists as praetorian prefects, which

will be discussed in detail below, demonstrate that a career in the legal sphere could just as well

lead to appointment as praetorian prefect in the Severan era. Moreover, as ever before, a

considerable number of ex-prefects of Egypt were promoted to the rank of praetorian prefect, and

in that way completed the equestrian cursus.135

However, a relatively large number of the praetorian prefects appointed after AD 240 had

military experience. As noted, Timesitheus had gained it under Severus Alexander in his Persian

expedition and in the Rhine area. Priscus‟ and Philippus‟ careers before the prefecture have not

been recovered, but their role in Gordianus‟ Persian wars renders it unlikely that they never held

military positions before the prefecture. Successianus chased away invading Scythians (i.e.

131

If he was indeed identical to the Genialis mentioned in CIL 6.214 (Roma), as Howe (1942), 68, no. 14, suggests.

CIL 8.18065 = ILS 2452 = AE 1937, 157 (Numidia, AD 162), mentions a centurion of III Augusta who goes by the

name Flavius Iuvenalis. He may have been identical with the prefect in 193. The interval of time, however, leaves it

more likely that the centurio was the prefect‟s homonymous father. 132

Herodianus 4, 12, 1; on Oclatinius Adventus, see Rankov (1987), 244-245; see also section 4.1. 133

Dio 79, 15, 1. 134

Dio 80, 3, 5. 135

(1) Veturius Macrinus, praefectus Aegypti 181-183, may have been identical to the praetorian prefect in 193-200;

(2) Aemilius Saturninus was governor in Egypt in 197-199 and praetorian prefect circa 200; (3) Maecius Laetus

governed Egypt between 200 and 203 and was praetorian prefect between 205 and 211; (4) Iulius Basilianus is

attested as praefectus Aegypti in 217-218, and subsequently became praetorian prefect in 218; (5) Geminius Chrestus

was governor of Egypt in 219-220, and praetorian prefect in 222; (6) Domitius Honoratus was prefect of Egypt in

222, and praetorian prefect in 223; and (7) Aedinius Iulianus governed Egypt in 222-223, and became praefectus

praetorio afterwards, probably circa 223. For more detailed information on these praefecti Aegypti and further

references, see Jördens (2009), passim.

147

Goths) as prefect of a Roman garrison before Valerianus called him to Syria and appointed him

praetorian prefect. Gallienus‟ prefect Volusianus, one of the few prefects whose career is almost

entirely known to us, was a true vir militaris. As has been mentioned above, Placidianus was

commanding troops before he became praetorian prefect. According to the Historia Augusta,

Carus‟ career included both civil and military offices. Zonaras calls him „brave and skilled in

war‟, and another passage of the Historia Augusta refers to him as one of the generals trained by

Probus. Finally, Flavius Aper, appointed prefect by Carus in the 280s, may have been identical

with the homonymous man who was praeses in Pannonia Inferior and perhaps also praepositus

of two legionary detachments under Gallienus.136

In sum, third-century emperors deployed praetorian prefects more and more as

troubleshooters, who headed military units and field armies while the emperors solved crises

elsewhere. This the Severi did so occasionally, but such appointments became even more

common from circa 240 onward. In times of need, the custom of the prefect accompanying the

emperor on his journeys was apparently ignored. From Philippus‟ reign onward, another practice

may have been altered: the available evidence indicates that emperors no longer (necessarily)

appointed two simultaneously operating praetorian prefects. Of course, it must be taken into

account that a lack of evidence may be rendering pairs of prefects untraceable. If true, however,

this obviously raised the level of power which the single prefect could exercise: he now became

the „second man‟ in the Empire, without having to share this role. In addition, many praetorian

prefects after the Severan era seem to have had a more concentrated military background.

Logically, the increasing number of military crises, occurring simultaneously in various areas in

the Empire, created a need for praetorian prefects who were capable of dealing with critical

military situations by themselves. The military authority of the praetorian prefect thus seems to

have increased, as he operated ever more independently over the course of the third century,

especially in the second half. Whether this growing level of military power affected the non-

military authority of the praetorian prefects will now be discussed.

136

For Timesitheus‟ career, see CIL 13.1807 = ILS 1330 (Gallia Lugdunensis); Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, no. 317,

815-816, and section 3.1. On Priscus and Philippus, see Körner (2002), 54-59, 72-74; 366-367. Based on Zosimus 1,

18, 3, De Blois (2001), 140-141, posits that Philippus was a specialist in military logistics. On Successianus, see

Zosimus 1.32, 1-2. On Volusianus: CIL 10.1706 (Puteoli, Italy); PLRE I, s.v. Volusianus 6; cf. section 4.2;

Placidianus: CIL 12.2228 (Gallia Narbonensis). On Carus, see HA, Vita Car. 5, 4; HA, Vita Prob. 22, 3; Zonaras 12,

30; On Aper, see: AE 1936, 53; 54; 57 (Pannonia Superior); CIL 3.15156 (Pannonia Inferior); PLRE I, s.v. Aper 2;

cf. Aper 3.

148

The power of the praetorian prefects: Non-military authority

Beside military tasks, praetorian prefects had legal and civil-administrative duties. The prefects‟

jurisdiction had probably followed from their basic duty: as commanders of the imperial

bodyguard, prefects had police powers in Rome. Accused men and prisoners were put under the

prefect‟s control. Arrested men from the provinces, who were transported to Rome, were handed

over to him as well. In this capacity a prefect could also investigate cases of high treason.137

As a

member of the emperor‟s council, moreover, the prefect both assisted in administering justice and

in formulating imperial policy, praetorian prefects having participated in the imperial council

from the first century onward.138

Whether the prefect‟s presence in the council was formalized at

some point is disputed, but he seems to have participated on a regular basis ex officio.139

Although

little evidence explicitly mentions prefects in council meetings in the third century, it may be

assumed that the prefects continued regularly to be present in the consilium, at least when they

found themselves in the emperor‟s entourage.140

Little can be said about the specific role of the

praetorian prefect within the imperial consilium, but because senators participated in it as well,

Mommsen‟s suggestion that the praetorian prefect acted as vice-president, chairing meetings in

the emperor‟s absence, seems unlikely. Senators would probably never have accepted the

equestrian as president of the council, due to his lower social status.141

By the late second century AD, praetorian prefects exercised independent jurisdiction in

Italy. Septimius Severus confirmed their jurisdiction in Italy beyond the hundredth milestone

from Rome and made the prefect president over a separate court of law in the capital, in which

the prefect exercised both an original and, more regularly, appellate jurisdiction.142

The

praetorian prefect‟s autonomous jurisdiction may have represented an expansion of his regular

137

Cf. Plinius, Epistulae 10, 57; HA, Vita Sev. 4, 3; Cod. Iust. 4, 65, 4. 138

See Crook (1975) and Amarelli (1983) for detailed studies of the imperial council. Seianus participating in

Tiberius‟ consilium: Suetonius, Tib. 55. For further references, see Eich (2005), 218, note 4. Contra Howe (1942),

32, who claims that the earliest reference to prefects as regular members of the consilium was from the time of

Marcus Aurelius, based on HA, Vita Marc. 11, 10. 139

Cf. Eck (1998), 6. 140

See Howe (1942), 32-33; Eich (2005), 218-219, on this matter. 141

Mommsen (1887), vol. 2, 990; 1121. Contra Mommsen, see Durry (1968), 175; Passerini (1939), 261; Crook

(1975), 98-99; Eich (2005), 218-219, note 1; cf. Howe (1942), 33, who argues that it is hard to see why the council

would ever meet without the emperor, since its function was to advise him. 142

See CIL 9.2438 = AE 1983, 331 (Saepinum, Italy) for the prefect‟s jurisdiction in Italy under Marcus Aurelius. On

the jurisdiction of the praefectus urbi within Rome, see Digesta 1, 12, 1, 4). On the praetorian prefect‟s jurisdiction

in Italy, see Howe (1942), 34-35, and Eich (2005), 216, note 5, for further references. Howe (1942), 34, compares

the praetorian prefect‟s jurisdiction for Italy to the judicial authority possessed by legati in the imperial provinces.

149

participation in the consilium principis, but the emperors may also have delegated it to them.143

From the beginning of the third century onward, the prefect‟s decisions could theoretically no

longer be challenged, as the prefect acted as the representative of the emperor (vice principis).144

Furthermore, from the Codex Iustinianus we know that in the third century the prefect exercised

appellate jurisdiction in appeals against legal verdicts by (senatorial?) provincial governors.

Severus Alexander decided that a governor could send accused men to his prefect Ulpianus for

more severe punishment, while the emperor Gordianus confirmed that a man who was

condemned by the governor could address the praetorian prefect for appeal.145

It is not known,

however, under which emperor this practice started, nor whether anyone could approach a prefect

for appeal directly or only through imperial delegation. Either way, the right of appeal did not

mean that the prefect had authority over the governors.

A constitution from the reign of Maximinus Thrax determined that a forma which was

issued by a prefect was to be considered binding as long as it did not contradict existing laws and

constitutions.146

Although the exact significance of the constitution is unclear since the meaning

of the word forma is disputed, it points at a further extension of the prefect‟s legal authority.147

The expansion of the praetorian prefects‟ authorities in the legal sphere coincides with the

appointment of jurists and juridically skilled bureaucrats as prefects in the Severan era.148

Aemilius Papinianus belonged to this category of men. As mentioned above, he had acted as

advocatus fisci and a libellis before he became praetorian prefect in 205. According to Dio,

Papinianus tried the case of robber Bulla Felix during his prefecture.149

He was finally dismissed

143

In the early Principate prefects only had delegated jurisdiction, temporarily granted by the emperor. See Eich

(2005), 217, note 1. 144

Cf. Digesta 1, 11, 1, 1. Howe (1942), 35: „In practice, however, appeals were granted by the emperors on rare

occasions … until Constantine finally settled the question by definitely forbidding them.‟ For the discussion on the

possibility to appeal against decisions of the prefect, see Peachin (1996), 165-166.; 191-194; Eich (2005), 217, note

7, with further references. 145

Cod. Iust. 4, 65, 4, 1; 9, 2, 6. Cf. 8, 40, 13, in which Gordianus decided that a decurio should hand over a criminal

to the governor or guard prefect. 146

Cod. Iust. 1, 26, 2: formam a praefecto praetorio datam, et si generalis sit, minime legibus vel constitutionibus

contrariam, si nihil postea ex auctoritate mea innovatum est, servari aequum est („The rules promulgated by the

praetorian prefect, even though they may be general in their character, must be observed, unless they contain

something contrary to the laws or the constitutions, if they have not subsequently been annulled by my authority.‟,

translation S.P. Scott (1973). 147

On the debate concerning the word forma, see Eich (2005), 219-221, with further references. 148

See De Blois (2001), 136-137, on the difficulty of distinguishing juridically skilled administrators or bureaucrats

from learned jurists who carried out tasks in the public service. Cf. Salway (1997), 152-153. 149

Dio 77, 10, 7.

150

by Caracalla some time before the murder of Geta and killed not long thereafter in 212.150

A

certain Patruinus murdered along with Papinianus at the request of the praetorians, was probably

also praefectus praetorio at that time, and was likely identical with the jurist and procurator

imperatoris Valerius Patruinus.151

Macrinus had followed a legal career as well: Dio records that

he had become known to Plautianus through the successful advocacy of a friend‟s case, and that

Plautianus made him his private advocate, probably as procurator managing part of his private

domains. According to the Historia Augusta, Macrinus was then appointed advocatus fisci, a

position responsible for looking after the interests of the imperial treasury. It may be conjectured

that it was Plautianus who recommended him for the job.152

Fabius Cilo prevented Macrinus from

being executed after Plautianus‟ downfall, although he was perhaps exiled for a while.153

Not

long thereafter, however, Macrinus continued his career under Severus, became praefectus

vehiculorum, procurator rationis and finally praefectus praetorio under Caracalla after

Papinianus had been killed.154

Macrinus spent most of his career in the capital and it is very likely

that he met Severus‟ elder son at some point in his career. Finally, Ulpianus was an apprentice of

Papinianus and member of his consilium (as discussed in section 3.1), and may have been a

libellis under Severus. By the end of 222, he was appointed praetorian prefect by Severus

Alexander.155

Ulpianus is also attested as a member of the emperor‟s consilium, and in fact,

several sources indicate that Ulpianus was an important adviser to the emperor, virtually co-

regent.156

Although we are told that he was made prefect because he was an outstanding jurist,

150

Dio 78, 1, 1; 4, 1; HA, Vita Sev. 21, 8; Vita Car. 4, 1-2; 8, 5-9. 151

Dio 78, 4, 1; HA, Vita Car. 4, 1-2.; Digesta 49, 14, 50. On Valerius Patruinus, see also Zwalve (2003). 152

Dio 79, 11, 2, calls him which may mean advocatus fisci, but should probably be regarded as

private advocate here. See Liddell-Scott (1996), 1715, s.v. . Generally, it is assumed that Plautianus made

him procurator, but it cannot be excluded that he held both positions, especially since HA, Vita Macr. 4, 4-6, reports

that he was advocatus fisci. 153

The fact that Dio (79, 11, 2) adds the words („beyond expectation‟) indicates that Macrinus was not

regarded an amicus of Cilo. The exile is only mentioned in HA, Vita Macr. 4, 3. 154

According to HA, Vita Diadum. 4, 1, Macrinus was procurator aerarii maioris by the birth of his son

Diadumenianus in 208. Since this was the only record of this office, it has been suggested that this was an error and

that the author meant to refer to Macrinus‟ post as procurator rationis/rei privatae, which is recorded elsewhere in

the Historia Augusta (HA, Vita Macr. 2, 1); on this matter, see Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, 670, no. 248. Dio 79, 11,

3, also mentions several positions as procurator, but adds that Macrinus‟ held them under Caracalla. Pflaum (1960-

1961), vol. 3, 1020, suggests that Macrinus may have held more than one procuratorship between 208 and 212. 155

Cod. Iust. 8, 37, 4; 4, 65, 4. According to HA, Vita Elag. 16, 5, Ulpianus was dismissed by Elagabalus, but it is

unclear which position he held at that time and whether this statement is true. Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus

24, 6, seems to be mistaken when re reports that Elagabalus made Ulpianus praetorian prefect. 156

Dio 80, 1, 1 (p. 478-479); HA, Vita Sev. Alex. 26, 6; 31, 2; 68, 1. Cf. Cod. Iust. 4, 65, 4, 1 („parentem meum’); 8,

37, 4 („amici mei’).

151

Ulpianus was not popular among the soldiers and is said to have needed special protection on

occasion from the emperor. A conflict with the military in Rome led to his death in 223 or 224.157

Two other, less illustrious men can be added to the list of bureaucrats who were appointed

praetorian prefect in the Severan era: Aurelianus Iulianus, prefect under Severus, if he was indeed

identical with the homonymous man who was a rationibus and a memoria; and a prefect under

Elagabalus, …atus, whose full name is unknown to us, who had been a studiis prior to his

prefecture.158

Whether the extension of the prefect‟s legal authority resulted from the

appointments of great jurists and legally skilled bureaucrats from the late second century onward,

or whether the expansion of the prefecture in the legal sphere attracted jurists to the position, is

unclear. Since military skilled men were also appointed to the prefecture in the Severan period, as

discussed above, legal knowledge can be excluded as a conditio sine qua non for an eques who

pursued the praetorian prefecture in those days.

For the civil-administrative duties of the praetorian prefects evidence is scarce and less

persuasive. Eich proffers an inscription from Saepinum dated in the reign of Marcus Aurelius as a

clue for the praetorian prefect‟s role in the imperial civil administration. In it a rationibus

Cosmus calls for the help of guard prefect Bassaeus Rufus concerning a dispute. It may have

been an informal request for advice, as Rufus had been a rationibus himself and probably knew

Cosmus; or Rufus may have been involved, since he had disciplinary authority in Italy.

According to Eich, however, Cosmus addresses Rufus as though they both belonged to the

imperial staff, and it should be read as an internal consultation. The praetorian prefect was of

higher rank within the imperial staff and therefore had an executive role, perhaps coordinating the

members of the staff, but Eich stresses that there is no indication either that the praetorian prefect

had control over the a rationibus, nor that Cosmus was accountable to Rufus.159

Dio, through Maecenas, claims that the praetorian prefect should represent the emperor in

supervising the caesariani, punishing the members of the administrative personnel at the imperial

court and officials in the provinces who did not do their duty. Again, however, it is unclear

157

Oustanding jurist: Zosimus 1, 11, 2. Unpopular among praetorians: HA, Vita Sev. Alex. 51, 4. On his death: Dio

80, 2, 2-4 (p. 480-483). 158

For Aurelius Iulianus, see CIL 5.4323 = ILS 1333 (Brixia, Italy); 14.2463 (Castrimoenium, Italy). For …atus, see

CIL 6.31776a = AE 2003, 182 (Roma) and CIL 6.31776b = AE 1997, 75 (Roma). See also Salway (1997). 159

Eich (2005), 224-229 on CIL 9.2438 = AE 1983, 331 (Saepinum, Italy). Cf. Millar (1986), 312: „The Praetorian

Prefects, however, clearly could and did warn the local magistrates to desist from police activities which were

damaging to the Imperial wealth‟.

152

whether Dio is here reflecting Severan reality or proposing for a reform.160

In the inscription from

Aragua, mentioned in Chapter 1 (section 1.1), imperial coloni ask Philippus to end the violations

of local potentes, administrators and soldiers marching by, and refer to a previous request for help

during his prefecture.161

Still, it remains unclear whether they had approached him in his capacity

as supervisor of the caesariani, or Gordianus had referred the coloni to his prefect. They may

even have addressed Philippus just because he had been in the area at that time.

Owing to the growing number of military crises, the emperors required ever more

resources. Therefore, the annona militaris, which was raised as a special tax presumably by

Septimius Severus and paid in kind, gradually became the most important tax. In due course, the

administration of the annona militaris was transferred to the praetorian prefects, who exercized

got the final responsibility for the collection of this tax and had to coordinate provincial

governors‟ tax collection.162

However, it is unclear when the praetorian prefect became involved

with levying this tax, with most scholars nowadays positing a transfer after AD 284.163

Although the paucity of evidence precludes definite conclusions, there are indications that

at certain moments in the third century some praetorian prefects saw their authority in the civil-

administrative sphere somewhat increase. Yet the evidence is so scarce that it cannot be

established whether this actually subordinated civil officials to the prefect. Furthermore, it is hard

to determine whether this points to further formal and structural growth of the civil-

administrative authorities of the praetorian prefect in the third century, or emperors used the

prefects as civil-administration coordinators vice Caesaris only on an occasional, ad hoc basis.164

To conclude, in the first decades of the period under discussion, under the Severan emperors, we

can detect an expansion of the praetorian prefects‟ authority in the legal sphere. The praetorian

prefects‟ jurisdiction within Italy had grown gradually as they became presidents of their own

160

Dio 52, 24, 4. Ps.-Paulus, Sententiae 5, 17, 11, a source from the late third century, attests that the praetorian

prefect at that point had the authority to punish the officiales of procurators. Eich (2005), 228: „Diese officiales

werden wohl ebenfalls als caesariani anzusehen sein.‟ 161

CIL 3.14191 (Asia). 162

HA, Vita Av. Cass. 5, 8; Vita Gord. 28, 2; Vita Trig. Tyr. 18; Vita Prob. 10, 6-7; Zosimus 2, 32, 2. 163

In the past, scholars believed that the control over the military annona was transferred to the praetorian prefect

under Severus. See Howe (1942), 29, note 28, with further references. Nowadays the more accepted view on this

matter is that the annona probably remained a special tax until at least 284 and that the way it was collected was not

standardized before the age of the Tetrarchy. See Jones (1964), vol. 1, 50; 449; Mitthof (2001); Eich (2005), 238,

note 3, with further references. Carlà (2007), however, expresses a different view and argues the responsibility over

the annona militaris was transferred to the praetorian prefect in the course of the second century. 164

Cf. Eich (2005), 229-235.

153

court of law in Rome, acting vice principis and being able to appeal against verdicts of provincial

governors. Besides independent jurisdiction, from beyond the hundredth milestone from Rome,

the praetorian prefects also were the highest-ranking military officers in Italy. The expansion of

judicial authority obviously coincides with the prime of renowned jurists and legally skilled

bureaucrats, but it cannot be determined whether their rise was the cause for the increasing legal

responsibilities, or its consequence. In the Severan era, prefects continued to fulfill their basic

task of protecting the imperial family and joining the emperors on military campaigns.

Yet, from about 240 onward, praetorian prefects increasingly received extraordinary

commands, in which they had to solve military crises without the emperor‟s direct guidance.

Such army commands were likely, at least initially, special delegations for particular campaigns.

In this capacity, the praetorian prefect also acted vice Caesaris, being deployed when the emperor

was not capable of solving a problem himself. The available evidence suggests that from the 240s

onward it was no longer standard to appoint two prefects. Although this had occurred

occasionally before, it now seems to have become more common. Having two praetorian prefects

had always acted as a mechanism for keeping the prefects‟ power in check. Perhaps the emperors

realized that the prefect, as he had increasingly to act vice Caesaris, needed a higher level of

autonomous power. Here too, however, it is difficult to distinguish cause from consequence. For

now, the reason for the more frequent appointment of sole prefects remains obscure.

In the civil-administrative sphere, the prefect may have acted as the emperor‟s deputy

occasionally as well, as there are indications – though scanty – that he at times had an executive

role in the imperial staff.

Thus, the praetorian prefect‟s power gradually increased, as he operated ever more

autonomously. In addition, the praetorian prefect functioned ever more as the emperor‟s personal

assistant, or even his prime minister, who could represent the emperor when the latter was not

willing or able to solve a situation himself. While the emperors‟ priorities changed, the scope of

the praetorian prefect‟s power seems to have broadened, as he could be sent into action in any

place where the emperor needed him. The praetorian prefect‟s power thus decreasingly required

the emperor‟s vicinity. His power was second only to the emperor‟s. It cannot, however, be

established whether the third-century expansion of the prefect‟s duties was formal and

permanent, or the prefect continued to operate vice principis as a delegate of the emperor.

154

The status of the praetorian prefect

By the end of the reign of Constantine, in AD 337, the praetorian prefecture and the other high-

ranking equestrian prefectures carried senatorial status. This section focuses on the process that

led to this elevation of status.165

From viri eminentissimi to viri clarissimi: the process of honoring praetorian prefects

From the Augustan era, there was a tension between the actual power of the praetorian prefecture

and the social status attached to the office. The equestrian status of the praetorian prefects

guaranteed social inferiority to even the most junior members of the senatorial order. According

to Salway, the negative example of Aelius Seianus reinforced the general principle that

simultaneous performance of both a public magistracy like a consulate and service in one of the

great equestrian prefectures was incompatible.166

Seianus, originally appointed co-prefect with

his father by Tiberius in AD 14, became sole prefect when his father was sent off to govern

Egypt. Seianus was granted ornamenta praetoria (the insignia of the the praetorship). After

Tiberius‟ retreat to Capri, Seianus stayed behind in Rome and effectively acted as the emperor‟s

viceroy. In January 31, Seianus was consul ordinarius with the emperor Tiberius as his colleague,

all the while continuing in his post as praetorian prefect. Eventually, of course, Tiberius disposed

of Seianus: persuaded that his prefect now threatened his own imperial position, the emperor

executed him. The well-known example of Seianus illustrates the danger of allowing a prefect to

combine the social prestige of senatorial status with the power and influence of the praetorian

prefecture. During the remainder of the first century AD, tenure of the prefecture became

considered incompatible with membership of the senate. Serving prefects could still be awarded

senatorial ornamenta, but the established sociopolitical hierarchy required an equestrian prefect

to retire from his post before embarking on a senatorial cursus honorum. In this way, praetorian

prefects held inferior social rank, whatever actual power they exercised.167

In the second century, the Antonine emperors rewarded some praetorian prefects with

ornamenta consularia (the insignia of the consulship) while still in office. These emperors

165

Over the last decades, several studies have examined the changing practices of honoring prefects from Septimius

Severus to Constantine. See Pflaum (1970); Chastagnol (1988); Christol (1999); Benoist (2000). See most recently

Salway (2006) with further references at p. 115. 166

Salway (2006), 117-118. 167

Salway (2006) 118-119, for examples of equestrian prefects who were granted senatorial ornamenta. Salway also

points out (119) that under the Flavians a couple of men became praetorian prefects, who were already senators at

the time of their appointments, namely the future emperor Titus and his brother-in-law Arrecinus Clemens.

155

furthermore allowed prefects who had received these senatorial ornamenta to replace the epithet

eminentissimus with the senatorial title clarissimus.168

The grant of senatorial ornamenta only

permitted the holder the symbols and titles of a senator, but not full membership in the order.

Thus, the longstanding principle that entry into the senate was incompatible with simultaneous

exercise of the praetorian prefecture preserved the social distinction between the senatorial and

equestrian orders established in the Iulio-Claudian period.

Under Septimius Severus, the praetorian prefect Fulvius Plautianus managed to obtain a

position comparable to that of Seianus.169

Closely associated with the emperor through their

common origin in Lepcis Magna and an alleged familial relationship, Plautianus was praefectus

vigilum before he was promoted to the praetorian prefecture.170

As praetorian prefect, he was

granted ornamenta consularia in 197, and probably became sole prefect after the death of his

colleague Aemilius Saturninus circa 200.171

Two years later, he further enhanced his position by

attaching himself to the imperial family through the marriage of his daughter Plautilla to

Caracalla. Thereupon, Plautianus was treated as a full member of the domus divina in public

dedications. In 203, when he obtained an ordinary consulship, Plautianus officially became a

senator, and his family was even enrolled as patrician.172

The consular pair of 203 was presented

as C. Fulvius Plautianus II P. Septimius Geta II, treating Plautianus‟ prior consular ornamenta as

equivalent to a genuine previous tenure of the magistracy and relegating Severus‟ brother‟s name

to the second position. No doubt Severus offended the senatorial order by doing all this.

Plautianus‟ consulate was contrary to the usual practice: while his consulship made Plautianus a

full member of the senate, he continued to serve as prefect until his death. A Roman inscription

even accidentally honors him as fourth emperor, alongside Severus, Caracalla and Geta.173

It may

be assumed that the statue incident discussed above took place at about the same time.174

As said

above, a final split between the emperor and Plautianus in January 205 ended in the prefect‟s

168

See Salway (2006), 119, note 21, for examples. 169

Dio 58, 14, 1, explicitly compares Plautianus to Seianus. 170

Herodianus 3, 10, 6. Severus and Plautianus were probably related through Severus‟ mother Fulvia Pia. See

Birley (1988), 221, no. 32. 171

In CIL 6.224 (Roma, June AD 197) Plautianus is attested as vir clarissimus. Howe (1942), 70-71, assumes there

were successors of Saturninus as colleagues of Plautianus. 172

CIL 6.226 (Roma, AD 202); CIL 11.8050 = ILS 9003 (Tuficum, Italy). 173

CIL 6.227 = ILS 427 (Roma). 174

Dio 76, 16, 2; HA, Vita Sev. 14, 5-6.

156

death. His memory was damned and custom restored, as Herodianus emphasized, when two

praetorian prefects replaced him.175

Caracalla did not honor a prefect in office with membership in the senate, but he clearly

promoted two ex-equestrians, holders of consular ornamenta, to ordinary consulships that were

considered iterations. One of them, Maecius Laetus, consul ‘II’ in 215, had been praetorian

prefect under Severus; the other, Messius Extricatus, is attested as praefectus annonae in 210,

was perhaps praetorian prefect under Caracalla, and became consul ‘II’ in 217.176

Caracalla‟s

grant of ornamenta consularia to his praetorian prefects Adventus and Macrinus conformed to

Antonine practice. Macrinus seems to have attempted to prevent his ornamenta from being

included in the count for his consulship in 218, because he did not want to offend senators any

further.177

Under Elagabalus, however, the practice of counting consular ornamenta as genuine

tenures continued: the emperor apparently allowed Comazon his iteration. Thereafter, however,

there are no unambiguously attested examples of the practice.178

Neither Caracalla nor Elagabalus

appointed serving equestrian prefects into senatorial offices.179

Just as the Historia Augusta‟s testimony that Elagabalus enrolled people into the senate

without distinction as to age, status or type finds little confirmation,180

so its statement of Severus

Alexander‟s policy with regard to his praetorian prefects is doubtful as well:

His prefects of the guard he would promote to the rank of senator in order that

they might belong to the class of The Illustrious (Lat: clarissimi) and be so

addressed. Previous to his time such promotions had been made rarely, or, if

made at all, had been of short duration […] Alexander, however, in wishing the

175

Herodianus 3, 13, 1. On Plautianus‟ damnatio memoriae, see Varner (2004), 161-164 with further references. 176

See Salway (1997), 148-153, for a reconstruction of the careers of Laetus (PIR² M 54) and Extricatus (PIR² M

518). Laetus succeeded Plautianus as prefect in 205. The exact year of his replacement is unclear, but he certainly

was no longer a praetorian prefect at the time of his consulship in 215. In inscriptions, Laetus preceded his colleague

M. Munatius Sulla Cerialis (AE 1984, 178, Italy: „Maecio Laeto II et Sulla Ceriale cos.’; AE 1959, 308 = AE 2003,

1512 (Italy) and AE 1998, 1618: „Laeto II et Ceriale cos.’), whereas Extricatus ceded precedence to the younger

patrician senator C. Bruttius Praesens (CIL 6.1984 = ILS 5025 (Roma): C. Bruttio Praesente, T. Messio Extricato II

cos.’ Cf. Salway (2006), 124. 177

Dio 79, 13, 1-2, praises him for the attempt. 178

Salway (2006), 127, note 63, argues that prior ornamenta are improbable for M. Aurelius Carus, consul II in 283,

and C. Valerius Diocletianus, consul II in 285. It is more likely that these iterations arose from suffect consulships on

their elevations to the throne in 282 and 284. See Rémy (1976-1977), 175-176; Chastagnol (1992), 228-229. 179

As said, Laetus and Extricatus had both retired from equestrian service before their consulships, and Comazon

combined the praetorian prefecture with the ornamenta consularia and his senatorial consulship with the urban

prefecture in 220. 180

HA, Vita Elag. 6, 2.

157

prefects to be senators had this end in view, namely, that no one might pass

judgment on a Roman senator who was not a senator himself.181

It suggests that Severus Alexander introduced a policy of making his praetorian prefects senators.

The account, however, wrongly supposes that praetorian prefects had only rarely been clarissimi

before the reign of Severus Alexander and falsely equates senatorial ornamenta with full

membership of the senate. Although some have appealed to the Album of Canusium to support

the notion that Alexander gave his prefects senatorial dignity on their appointment, Nicols‟ view

of the document, that the praetorian prefects played an important role as patroni in Italy and were

therefore listed as men of senatorial rank, provides a plausible alternative explanation for this

abnormality.182

In fact no source from Severus Alexander‟s reign equates prior ornamenta with a

properly held consulship.

All known praetorian prefects from Alexander‟s later years up to Gallienus‟ sole reign

were eminentissimi. There is no evidence that any praetorian prefect received ornamenta or

senatorial membership through appointment as consul. Since the mounting tension between

senators and equites manifested itself in the senatorial revolt of 238, it is no surprise that the

emperors hesitated to grant their praetorian prefects senatorial status between the late 230s and

the 260s. Perhaps the prefects themselves also avoided the impression that they wanted to share

in the traditional senatorial prestige for a while. By no means, however, did this signal political

weakness: Timesitheus, for instance, was just as powerful as Plautianus had been, and perhaps

even more powerful, since his son-in-law the teenage emperor Gordianus III must have been

more compliant than the mature Septimius Severus. Yet Timesitheus remained an eques.183

The

same applies to Priscus: while even after his brother Philippus had replaced Gordianus as

emperor in 244, Priscus continued in office as praefectus praetorio, while de facto ruling the

Eastern part of the Empire, nonetheless, as far as we know, he never became a vir clarissimus.184

Praetorian prefects‟ complete avoidance of senatorial honors, even those who were very closely

connected to the imperial throne, may not only have been a consequence of the events in 238: it

may also indicate a certain devaluation of senatorial status in this period.

181

HA, Vita Sev. Alex. 21, 3-5. On this passage, see Chastagnol (1970). 182

Nicols (1988), 126, suggests that those men appear in the Album as clarissimi viri because they had been awarded

senatorial ornamenta. 183

CIL 6.1611 = 31831 (Roma, undated) credits Timesitheus as eminentissimus vir. 184

Priscus as vir eminentissimus: CIL 3.14149, 05 = ILS 9005 (Arabia, 246).

158

Unfortunately, the 250s present a lacuna in information on praetorian prefects and their

status.185

The first known case in which a serving prefect was granted senatorial honors again can

be found during Gallienus‟ sole reign. By then, the prevailing tendency to avoid senatorial honors

for prefects in office seems to have come to an end. In 260, Gallienus shared the ordinary

consulship with his praetorian prefect Petronius Taurus Volusianus.186

Obviously, Volusianus

ceded precedence to the emperor in the proclamation of the consuls, so precedence was not an

issue. Neither was the pseudo-iteration, since the practice of granting ornamenta consularia had

by then apparently ceased to exist. Like Comazon, Volusianus switched to the senatorial cursus

honorum: he became urban prefect in 267-268. However, Heraclianus, the only other known

praetorian prefect of Gallienus, did not become consul and thus remained an eminentissimus vir,

so apparently Gallienus did not grant his prefects senatorial honors as a matter of general

policy.187

Aurelianus also appointed a serving praetorian prefect to an ordinary consulship: Iulius

Placidianus in 273. In an inscription from Narbonensis, Placidianus is attested as praetorian

prefect and vir clarissimus.188

There appears to be no warrant for positing prior ornamenta, as

there is no evidence for iteration. Yet, the order in which the consuls were proclaimed, with the

patrician senator preceding the senior equestrian official (Tacitus et Placidianus cos.), shows that

senatorial sensibilities were taken into consideration.189

Thus, from 260 onward, a new practice

emerged: praetorian prefects were nominated directly to the consulship and this appointment

became their entry to senatorial status.190

These prefect-consuls retained their offices as

consulars. This situation exhibited more clarity than the Severan practice of a genuine consulship

following consular ornamenta, and it may have actually reaffirmed the value of senatorial dignity

for the effective political potentes.

Under Diocletian, the situation showed no drastic change. Before 284, more than one

consular ex-prefect had already reached the urban prefecture (i.e. Comazon, Volusianus). During

185

Salway (2006), 128, points out that the appointments of Ulpius Silvinus and Porcius Aelianus, both eminentissimi,

may have belonged to this decade. 186

CIL 11.5749 = ILS 7221 = AE 1992, 562 (Sentinum, Italy); HA, Vita Gall. 1, 2. 187

AE 1948, 55 (Thracia). 188

CIL 12.1551 (Gallia Narbonensis). 189

According to Christol (1986), 111-113; 153-158, the consul Tacitus is to be identified with A. Caecina Tacitus. 190

This new practice also applied to other high equestrian prefects: in 275, Iulius Marcellinus, prefect of Egypt in

271, prefect of Mesopotamia and rector Orientis in 272, was appointed consul ordinarius with the emperor

Aurelianus as his colleague. See PIR² A 1546; I 403; PLRE I, Marcellinus 1; 2; 19; 20; 21; Christol (1986), 113-114.

Cf. Salway (2000), 129.

159

the reign of Diocletian some consular ex-prefects became not only urban prefects, but also

proconsuls of Africa or Asia, which in fact reaffirmed the superior social prestige of these high

senatorial positions. Eventually, the upper stages of the senatorial and equestrian careers

converged during the reign of Constantine, as he granted the title vir clarissimus and thus

senatorial dignity to all praetorian prefects and some other high equestrian prefects.191

Some Implications: praetorian prefects and senators in the imperial service

In 203, when Septimius Severus appointed Plautianus consul during his prefecture, thereby

granting him entry into the senate, this decision encountered opposition from one faction in the

palace, including Caracalla and Iulia Domna. It is hardly surprising that the majority of Severus‟

entourage, which included a considerable number of senators, was not amused. The actual power

and influence of a praetorian prefect had always depended on the personality of both him and his

emperor, but until then the prefect‟s social inferiority to the traditional senatorial aristocracy had

restricted it.192

The resistance against Plautianus‟ growing power doubtlessly derived from his

overwhelming power and his senatorial status in an era in which senators still dominated both the

imperial entourage and the essential military and administrative posts. That explains why the later

emperors of the Severan era were much more cautious in granting their prefects senatorial status.

At the end of the 230s and in the 240s, neither senatorial ornamenta nor full membership

in the senate through consulates were assigned to the praetorian prefects, definitely in reaction to

the events in 238. Yet by the 260s, the tide had turned, for by then, as discussed in the previous

chapter, the senators tended to focus on Italy, Africa and Asia, as the main areas where they

exercised power. Great military commands went into equestrian rather than senatorial hands,

which had largely reduced the military influence of the senators in the imperial service, as will be

further discussed in Chapter 4. It was in those days also that the practice of nominating sitting

prefects as consul was re-established. It is noteworthy that by then the authority of praetorian

prefects, certainly in the military and legal sphere, had also increased in comparison with the end

of the second century AD.

Senatorial status will not have added much to the authority of the praetorian prefect in his

contacts with military commanders: the military cadre basically consisted of equites and the

191

On the period AD 284-337, see also Chastagnol (1970), 52-59; Salway (2006), 128-133. 192

The only exception to this rule was Seianus, whose position has been discussed above.

160

praetorian prefect had since long been the highest-ranking equestrian official. Yet, in his relation

with the senators senatorial status and even actual membership of the senate may have expanded

the praetorian prefect‟s authority. At the same time when the prefect‟s jurisdiction within Italy

had been extended, the civil-administrative role of senators within Italy had increased, as senators

were acting as correctores and curatores within communities. Viewed from that perspective,

senatorial status for a praetorian prefect who operated within Italy may have been desirable.

Volusianus‟ promotion to senatorial rank, for instance, may have been intended as a way to

increase his authority over senators in Rome and Italy. If Volusianus acted as counterpart to the

senatorial men in Italy, who will have attached great importance to senatorial status and who had

become acquainted with him as an equestrian vir militaris when he commanded Roman cohorts

in the 250s, an elevation of Volusianus‟ status would have lent him the necessary authority to

control senators in the imperial service serving in Italy. Seen from that point of view, the remark

of the Historia Augusta that Severus Alexander gave his praetorian prefects senatorial rank

(senatoria dignitas) lest no Roman senator would be judged by someone who was not a senator

(„ne quis non senator de Romano senator iudicaret‟), may have been nearer to the truth than

initially thought and generally assumed by most scholars, although the imperial policy was

clearly dated too early in the third century and ascribed to the wrong emperor.193

This situation was not necessarily restricted to Italy. As discussed above, the praetorian

prefect could appeal the verdict of a provincial governor at least from the reign of Gordianus III

onward. In practice, this implied that the jurisdiction of senatorial governors was open to

challenge from the praetorian prefect, a man who had great power, but was of inferior social

status.194

It must have been hard for the senators to accept this situation, especially for the

senatorial elite discussed in Chapter 2. The fact, however, that the praetorian prefect acted vice

principis, as delegate of the emperor, may have mitigated senators‟ loss of power and sense of

degradation. By 260, the process of replacing senatorial members of the imperial staff by

equestrian men was in an advanced stage. Yet, Gallienus still chose to grant Volusianus both

senatorial rank and actual entry into the senate. As noted above, this may have enabled the

praetorian prefect to stand up against the senatorial elite in Italy, and perhaps even ended the need

for imperial delegation. If so, this step simplified the process. While Gallienus was busy solving

193

HA, Vita Sev. Alex. 21, 3-5. 194

In the late 230s and early 240s, senatorial governors had not yet been replaced as regularly with equestrian

agentes vice praesidis or praesides as from the 260s onward.

161

military crises, there was no need for him to delegate judicial and perhaps even civil-

administrative tasks to his praetorian prefect who was active in Italy: the elevation of rank

enabled the prefect to act on his own authority. Although by 260, the time may have been ripe for

this move, this remains merely a conjecture for the moment, and we must note that the occasional

status elevation of praetorian prefects may still have appeared to contemporaries to be a reward or

a consequence of their increased authority, preventing the occurrence of status dissonance.195

The careful process by which the third-century emperors gradually elevated the status of

the praetorian prefects toward senatorial dignity makes clear that, although the social structure in

the Empire had by then become less rigid, the rulers still had to be cautious not to offend the

senatorial aristocracy with too progressive reforms. It was not until Constantine, about half a

century after the reign of Gallienus, senatorial status was granted to all the praetorian prefects

and other high equestrians.196

Praetorian prefects and emperors

The growing power and status of the praetorian prefect in the course of the third century

coincided with shifts in the social and career background of the Augusti who ruled the Empire

between 193 and 284 and their priorities. As has been discussed in Chapter 1, emperors were

prevalently senatorial until the reign of Gallienus. Macrinus, Maximinus Thrax and Philippus

Arabs were the only emperors before 268 who clearly had equestrian status at the time of their

proclamation. Both Macrinus and Philippus were praetorian prefects when they were acclaimed.

Most emperors who reigned between 268 and 284, on the other hand, had equestrian status when

they were proclaimed. This indicates that senatorial status gradually faded as an essential factor

for acclamation as emperor. An important step in the process of granting sitting prefects

senatorial dignity can be traced under Gallienus‟ sole emperorship as well. This implies that

senatorial status no longer served to distinguish an emperor from praetorian prefect(s). A few

emperors had had praetorian prefects of equal social ranks in the first half of the third century,

but this equality became more or less continuous by the 260s. This may explain why praetorian

195

Cf. Peachin (1996), 161: „[…] the practice of appointing substitutes had, by the early third century, already long

existed. However, we find, beginning with the Severans, a seemingly greater frequency of the practice, and this was

accompanied by a tendency to allow people of lesser or, in Roman terms, a more inappropriate status to function

thus.‟ The necessity of imperial delegation as the basis of the praetorian prefect‟s authority has socio-political

implications that I intend to examine in greater depth in future research. 196

Cf. Eich (2005), 239-241, who, with the example of Africa, demonstrates that even in the fourth century emperors

avoided offending the traditional aristocracy by depriving them of traditional offices in favor of equestrian officials.

162

prefects did not automatically receive senatorial rank between 268 and 284. All the emperors in

this period, however, assumed senatorial rank soon after their acclamation and held ordinary

consulships to affirm their membership of the senate, which reflects the value still attached to

senatorial status, at least in certain circles. Thus, the distinction in social status between the

praetorian prefect and the emperor appears to have been marginal in the last decades of the period

under scrutiny.197

As for praetorian prefects‟ power, the available evidence displays an increasing focus on legal

and bureaucratic duties in the age of the Severi, followed by a period in which the praetorian

prefect appears primarily in military contexts.198

It is notable that the pre-imperial careers of both

Septimius Severus and Macrinus were juridically and bureaucratically oriented. The other

emperors of the Severan era owed their acclamation to dynastic connections; they were

proclaimed at a young age before being eligible to hold any positions. In those first decades of

the third century, several praetorian prefects were lawyers or juridically skilled bureaucrats. In

contemporary literary evidence legal expertise constituted practically the ideal talent for a prefect.

In 235, Maximinus Thrax was the first emperor, as far as we know, whose previous career

consisted solely of military positions, and he is the first of a series of third-century emperors

whose military skills and experience are emphasized in the available evidence. Admittedly, the

cause of the shift may lie in the fact that the sources on the second half of the third century tend

to stress military experience. Yet it is striking that the same increasing focus, first on legal and

bureaucratic authorities, later on military authority, can be traced if we examine the power

exercised by the third-century praetorian prefects.

From circa 240 onward, the emperors‟ priorities changed drastically and they no longer seem

to have been able to divide their attention between military, civil-administrative, diplomatic and

legal matters. Ever more occupied with waging war and solving problems in border regions,

emperors increasingly assigned praetorian prefects to carry out duties which had previously been

reserved for the emperor. As ever before during the Principate, it is complicated to determine

whether tasks were added to the range of individual prefects‟ duties, or the responsibilities of the

197

I hope to return to the reasons for and consequences of the shift of the praetorian prefects‟ power and status in a

later publication. 198

Again, this conclusion might be biased by the surviving evidence. However, it is striking that people with very

clear expertise in legal matters could rise to the praetorian prefecture under the Severi and that later praetorian

prefects mainly used their military expertise. This obviously leaves open the possibility that these military prefects

also interfered in legal and bureaucratic matters, but it was clearly no longer their main area of expertise. Cf. Honoré

(1994); De Blois (2001).

163

praetorian prefecture as an office were extended, which would imply that when a task was

assigned to one prefect, it automatically belonged to the job responsibilities of the next. Here, we

run into the same obstacle that we face with regard to emperorship: the position was never

constitutionally specified. This prevents us from establishing whether the prefect should be

regarded a magistrate with imperium acting on his own authority, or whether he always acted vice

Caesaris, based on special delegation by the emperor which was only temporarily legitimate.

Although some developments indicate an increase of personal authority, as demonstrated above,

the evidence offers no clear answer to this question: the exact legal status of the prefect cannot be

established. What can be established, however, is that the changes in the position of the

praetorian prefect mirrored changes in the background and priorities of the emperors, and that in

the second half of the third century prefects increasingly operated separately from the emperor

and the imperial entourage, as they mainly solved military crises.

From the reign of Philippus, long-term habitation in the capital was no longer an option for

emperors. Military crises in various parts of the Empire forced emperors to focus on either the

East or the West, and to either disregard the problems in other parts of the Empire or to send a

trustworthy deputy to resolve critical situations. In the latter case, emperors obviously preferred

to send a relative or, if no family member was available, a praetorian prefect as his deputy.

Philippus sent Priscus, who conveniently was both a relative and his praetorian prefect, to the

East while he himself concentrated on the war against the Carpi and Germanic tribes. Volusianus

covered Italy while Gallienus fought against the Goths and Heruli in the Balkans. Aurelianus had

Placidianus fight in Gallia Narbonensis while he himself was in the East.

As in earlier periods of the Principate, third-century emperors regularly chose relatives as

prefects, if they were available. The reason for this practice was evident: a relative was naturally

bound to the emperor and thus considered a loyal ally. Occasionally, however, it happened the

other way around: a prefect could be brought into the imperial family. The implications of

prefects‟ entry into the imperial family are less evident than the practice of appointing a relative

as praetorian prefect. It may have expressed the emperor‟s trust of the prefect or secured loyalty.

Perhaps the intention was to elevate a prefect‟s status without actually granting him senatorial

status. A prefect who was allied to the imperial family would certainly be more acceptable to

senators as an emperor‟s deputy.

164

In sum, third-century developments in emperorship and the prefecture were strongly

connected and interdependent. As in previous centuries, the power and status of the praetorian

prefect in the third century largely depended on the nature and authority of the emperor he

served. Yet, while Seianus under Tiberius, and both Perennis and Cleander under Commodus,

mainly profited from their rulers‟ lack of interest in governance - if we may believe the literary

evidence - the praetorian prefects of the third-century owed their expanding positions to external

factors which occupied emperors and undermined their authority increasingly.199

It was probably

due to these circumstances that prefects assumed ever more imperial tasks, first mainly in the

legal and bureaucratic sphere, and later also in military crises. Gradually, the prefect‟s authority

was extended. Whether he continued to operate vice principis, as imperial delegate, or whether

his power developed toward a personal authority (imperium) would be interesting information to

have. Unfortunately, however, as so often with third-century material, the available evidence

does not enable us to draw conclusions on this matter. It does seem clear that ultimately, the

prefect was the second most important man of the Empire, whose social status was second only to

the emperor – and even the emperor could not always outdo him.

3.4. Conclusion

As was noted at the beginning of this chapter, the ordo equester was an even more heterogeneous

group than the ordo senatorius. Focusing on those equestrians at the very top of Roman imperial

administration who saw their power increase, two main trends can be detected. One already

started well before the period under discussion: intellectuals from the Greek and Latin world

replaced imperial freedmen as imperial secretaries. Under the Severan emperors, sophists and

jurists still played an important role at court. They had a relatively high status within the ordo. As

imperial secretaries they held the title vir perfectissimus, and they often attained the highest

equestrian prefectures or could even gain admission into the senate. Their rhetorical and

intellectual qualities, which their high status generally allowed them to develop, made them

exceptionally qualified candidates to perform secretarial duties for the emperor. In other words,

taking the perspective of Dahl‟s power dimensions, we may say that the power of this group of

equites seems to have been based primarily on their education and their scholarly reputation.

Civil-administrative, financial and legal responsibilities fell within the scope of their power. In

199

On Seianus under Tiberius, see Hennig (1975); Levick (1976). On Perennis and Cleander under Commodus, see

Hekster (2002), 60-77.

165

that respect, their role was comparable to that of the senatorial elite discussed in Chapter 2.

However, whereas the senatorial elite may have profited from the shift of priorities from the

center to the periphery and the emperor‟s increasing absence from Rome, equestrian intellectuals‟

power depended mostly on the emperor‟s vicinity at court and his concern with non-military

matters. Consequently, from the 230s, when the emperors were forced increasingly to focus on

military crises in border regions, this group of equestrians seems to have reduced its active, or at

least its perceptible, involvement in imperial administration, even in cases of intellectuals who

accompanied the emperor on his campaigns.

From the reign of Septimius Severus onward, equestrians were also increasingly

appointed as provincial governors and military commanders. This second trend was of a different

order, as in this case it was no longer imperial liberti whose previous posts equestrians now

filled, but senators. This extension of equestrian power, however, was often disguised as a

provisional appointment: many equestrians were appointed as agens vice, and thus supposedly

replacing senators temporarily as deputies. A great number of these positions went to ranking

soldiers who had eventually acquired equestrian status. Whereas this group only constituted a

minority within the ordo equester in the first and most of the second centuries AD, in the course

of the third century military professionals came to dominate within the equestrian order. The

military crises under Marcus Aurelius, during which militarily skilled equestrians such as

Pertinax were able to rise rapidly, can probably count as the situation where this trend first

developed. From the 230s onward, emperors badly needed such professional military men. Their

military experience was the main reason that they could participate in imperial power. The power

of those men who rose to the top of imperial administration depended furthermore on access to

money and supplies and the support of a great number of soldiers. Military matters dominated the

scope of their power, and those subject to their power consisted solely of the soldiers under their

command. For duces, a geographic area (dux limitis or dux ripae) or specific army units (dux

exercitus) often constituted the domain of their authority. How much power they could exercise

varied and depended on a combination of factors, such as the number of troops they commanded,

the presence and level of authority of other (military) power holders in the area, and the resources

at their disposal.

The office of the praefectus praetorio, the high equestrian position on which we are best

informed, experienced a similarly gradual extension of power over the course of the third

166

century. The available evidence demonstrates an increasing focus first on legal and bureaucratic

authority at the beginning of the period under scrutiny and later, from circa 240 onward, a focus

on military authority. Thus, the development of the range of duties assigned to the highest

ranking equestrian seems to reflect the main development within the ordo: the high status of the

educated intellectuals, sophists and jurists, who dominated at court from the late second century

until the 230s was gradually assumed by military professionals. It is noteworthy that a similar

process occurred in the emperorship, as has been demonstrated in Chapter 1. That emperors who

spent most of their time at court in Rome selected a different type of men as praetorian prefect

than emperors who were mostly active in military campaigns at the peripheries is only logical, as

emperors‟ shifting priorities demanded different qualities in their second man. Ideally, a

praetorian prefect combined legal, civil-administrative and military skills, as all these matters fell

within the scope of the prefect‟s power. Sometimes, the simultaneous appointment of two

praetorian prefects with a different background could mobilize a combination of these skills.

However, the appointment of two simultaneously operating praetorian prefects, which was a

simple way to control the level of power either of them could exercise, seems to have passed out

of use over the course of the third century. This obviously allotted a (single) praetorian prefect

more power. As to the domain of the praetorian prefect‟s power: he was second only to the

emperor and thus the second most powerful man within the Empire. Eventually, the praetorian

prefect‟s status was equalized to his high level of power: prefects received senatorial rank and

titulature, and could even enter the senate as consuls, while retaining their office as prefect. From

the 260s such a status upgrade was occasionally applied. Consequently, those praetorian prefects

may have approached (but not equaled) the status of the senatorial elite, who by then seem to

have dominated areas such as for instance Italy as curatores and correctores. Combined with the

replacement of senators by equestrians in the military sphere, this elevation of status may have

contributed to the praetorian prefect‟s increasing ability to operate autonomously, separate from

the emperor. Whether the praetorian prefect continued to operate on the basis of imperium

delegated by the emperor, or his imperium was eventually attached to the prefecture itself, is

unresolved. Either way, this will have affected the power which the prefect could exercise,

especially in confrontations with men of high status. Yet, as said above, for now this matter

remains unresolved.

167

Since the status elevation of the praetorian prefect, the highest equestrian officer, rose in

the third century, it would be reasonable to conjecture that the military professionals who came to

dominate the ordo equester experienced a comparable upgrade in status in due course. In fact,

there are some indications that a growing number of equestrian officers received the title vir

perfectissimus. Whereas this title had been reserved for high-ranking equestrian prefects and

imperial secretaries up until the Severan era, from the 240s onward the title was also bestowed

upon less high-ranking equestrian officers. It is notable that this elevation in status started long

after equestrians had been assuming positions which were previously reserved for senators. The

lack of clarity caused by the fact that such appointments were initially presented as interim

solutions may have facilitated this lag time.

These examples of status elevation within the equestrian order may indicate that

senatorial status became somewhat less prestigious in the course of the third century. Both the

equestrian emperors and the fact that men like Timesitheus and Priscus, who played essential

roles within imperial administration, seem not to have been elevated to senatorial rank support

this proposition. The same applies to the inscription concerning Rufinus, in which his equestrian

status is recorded well before his consular rank. Yet, it should be noted that the increase of status

within the equestrian order was not ubiquitous: individual equestrians saw their level of status

rise, but not all members of the ordo experienced such elevation of status. Likewise, senatorial

status was not subject to a certain depreciation everywhere in the Empire, as has been discussed

in Chapter 2. Moreover, the fact that some high equestrian prefects were granted senatorial

dignities may also indicate that senatorial status was still the highest status symbol available, at

least in those areas where senators still played an active role in imperial administration.

To conclude, the changing position of equestrians who served at the very top of Roman

imperial administration shows close connections with the changing composition of the order in

the period under discussion. Categorical statements as they have been made by scholars in the

past are therefore indemonstrable.

168

CHAPTER 4

HIGH-RANKING MILITARY OFFICERS:

SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS VERSUS GALLIENUS

Discussed so far have been changes in power and status of the emperors, the senatorial elite and

high equestrians. This chapter examines the military officers, among whom both senators and

equestrians played a role. To illustrate the developments in the power and status of military

officers during the third century, two cases will be analyzed and compared: the set of high-

ranking military officers under Septimius Severus and those operating under Gallienus.

Admittedly, confining oneself to test cases can be tricky, since this could paint too

fragmentary a picture. There are, however, several reasons why such an approach is justified.

First of all, the overwhelming number of military events in the third century combined with the

gradually declining quantity and quality of the evidence precludes mapping out the positions of

all third-century military officers. A thorough study of these two cases, separated by about sixty

years, will probably create a view of equal, or even better, standing. Second, these cases are both

relatively well documented and they correspond in that both at the beginning of Severus‟ reign

and during most of the rule of Gallienus, the Empire experienced crisis, a situation which

displays common structures most clearly.1 Apart from these parallels which allow for

comparison, there are also distinctions which indicate changes and developments in the

composition, power and status of the Empire‟s high-ranking military officers over the course of

the third century. Yet the divergent nature and quality of the source material of the two cases,

prevents two precisely parallel discussions. The evidence on Septimius Severus‟ generals offers

us the opportunity to draw conclusions about the individuals in the offices. For Gallienus‟

military officers, however, the evidence is more fragmentary. Nevertheless, it suffices to

determine a frame, in which the individual generals fit, and to deduce patterns and draw

conclusions.

An analysis and comparison of these cases will reveal not only a change in the character

of the era, but also changes in the social rank of military officers and the declining value of

1 Cf. Flaig (1997), 20: „Aber der Ernstfall ist die Probe darauf, welche politischen Beziehungen wirken und welche

nicht.‟

169

senatorial rank in military contexts. Furthermore, it shows some strategic arrangements of the

emperors to secure their power and to prevent the military from becoming a threat. Before we can

proceed to an analysis, however, a chronological overview, which will discuss the high-ranking

officers who emerge from the literary and epigraphic evidence, is indispensable.

4.1. Septimius Severus and his military officers

Severus’ initial support – the expeditio urbica (193)

Table 1: Severus’ supporters in 193

Name Position

Clodius Albinus Legatus Aug pr pr Britanniae

Fabius Cilo Consul suffectus

Iulius Avitus Alexianus Procurator ad annonam Ostiis

Iulius Laetus Commander of the praecursores

Iulius Septimius Castinus Tribunus militum legionis I Adiutricis (Pannonia

Sup.) item V Macedoniae (Moesia Inf.)

Marius Maximus Legatus legionis I Italicae (Moesia Inf.)

Septimius Geta Legatus Aug pr pr Moesiae Inferioris

Valerius Valerianus Praepositus vexillationis

In 193, Septimius Severus, governor of Pannonia Superior, seized imperial power. Inevitably, the

Pannonian legions supported his claim. Additional support came from other legions of the Rhine

and Danubian area, for instance those stationed in Moesia Inferior, the province governed by

Severus‟ brother Septimius Geta.2 Tribunus militum Iulius Septimius Castinus and legionary

legate Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus thus sided with Severus at early stages in their

senatorial careers. Furthermore, by acclaiming Clodius Albinus, the governor of Britannia,

Caesar, Severus secured the support of the three legions stationed there.3

A man named Iulius Laetus led Severus‟ advance guard during his march on Rome. It is

very likely that he is the same man who later played a role in the Parthian wars and Albinus‟

defeat.4 Another man involved was Valerius Valerianus, who as praepositus commanded one of

2 Septimius Geta is attested as governor of Moesia Inferior in AE 1946, 131 = IRT 541 (Lepcis Magna) and an

inscription from Oescus, Moesia Inferior. See Boteva (1996a), 239-240, note 8. On Septimius Geta, see furthermore

PIR² S 453. Severus‟ coinage (BMCRE V, 21, nos. 7-25) shows that at least fifteen of the sixteen legions in Raetia,

Noricum, Dacia, the Pannonian, Moesian and German provinces, initially supported him. Cf. Campbell (2005a), 3,

note 6. On the year 193 and Severus‟ initial support, see also Birley (1988), 89-107; Christol (1997), 26-28. 3 On Iulius Septimius Castinus, see PIR² I 566; on Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, see CIL 6.1450 = ILS

2935 (Roma); PIR² M 308; Birley (1997b), esp. 2694-2703; cf. Chapter 2; on Clodius Albinus, see PIR² C 1186;

Birley (2005), 174-180. 4 HA, Vita Did. Iul. 8, 1. On Laetus as Severus‟ commander during the Parthian wars, see Dio 75, 2-3 (p. 196-197);

75, 9, 1-2. On Laetus, cavalry commander in the battle against Albinus, see Dio 76, 6, 8; Herodianus 3, 7, 3-7; cf.

HA, Vita Sev. 11, 2. On Iulius Laetus, see also PIR² I 373.

170

the detachments during this expeditio urbica. Valerianus had previously completed the equestrian

tres militiae and served as procurator in Cyprus and cavalry commander (praepositus equitum).5

Support within the city of Rome seems to have been arranged as well: if we may believe

the Historia Augusta, which reports that Fabius Cilo was appointed consul designatus by

Commodus before the latter was murdered, Cilo may well have been consul suffectus in April

193.6 At several moments in their careers, Severus and Cilo clearly operated in each other‟s

vicinity.7 It is therefore reasonable to assume that they knew each other when Severus was

proclaimed emperor. As consul (even if he was still a designatus), Cilo would be a powerful ally

in the capital. Iulia Domna‟s brother-in-law, Iulius Avitus Alexianus, may also have performed

useful service for Severus when he marched on Rome: if he was indeed procurator ad annonam

in Ostia in 193, and so assisting the praefectus annonae of Rome in the provision, storage and

transportation of the corn supply of the capital, as Birley suggests, he was an important man.8

The battle against Niger – the expeditio Asiana (193-194)

Table 2: men involved in the battle against Niger

Name Position

Claudius Candidus Dux exercitus Illyrici 193/194

Dux adversus rebelles Asiae 194

Cornelius Anullinus Legatus Aug/Dux exercitus

Fabius Cilo Praepositus vexillationibus Illyricianis 193

Comes in expeditione Orientali 194

Legatus Aug pr pr Ponti et Bithyniae 193/194

Hedius Rufus Loll. Gentianus Comes

Marius Maximus Dux exercitus Moesiaci

Valerius Valerianus Praepositus vexillationis adversus hostes

publicos (under Anullinus)

After Didius Iulianus was cut out, the senate officially acknowledged Severus as the new

emperor. While Albinus secured the northwestern borders, Severus was free to move eastwards

and deal with another rival. Pescennius Niger, governor of Syria, had been acclaimed emperor by

5 Valerius Valerianus, according to Birley (1988), 98, possibly of Pannonian origin, was an eques whose career is

known to us from an inscription from Caesarea Maritima. Unfortunately, a third of the text was lost when a later

inscription was engraved on the same column. Enough has survived, however, to show that Valerianus was a key

figure during Septimius Severus‟ civil wars. By now, several scholars have suggested restorations, so that we have

some idea of what his career may have looked like. See Speidel (1985), cf. Fitz (1969). 6 HA, Vita Comm. 20, 1. On Fabius Cilo, see PIR² F 27.

7 They both commanded a legion in Cappadocia at the beginning of the sole reign of Commodus. Fabius Cilo was

legatus legionis XVI Flaviae Firmae which was stationed in Samosata between 180 and 184. Septimius Severus was

legatus legionis IIII Scythicae which was stationed in Zeugma ca 182/183. Later, they governed the neigbouring

provinces of Gallia Narbonensis and Gallia Lugdunensis at about the same time in the 180s. 8 Cf. Birley (2005), 226. On Iulius Avitus Alexianus, see PIR² I 192; Halfmann (1982); Birley (2005), 225-226.

171

the troops in Antiocheia at about the same time Severus was proclaimed.9 Although Niger had

been playing a waiting game for awhile, he now headed for Rome. Severus‟ first response was to

send Cilo to Perinthus as commander of a number of vexillationes Illyriciani to prevent Niger‟s

troops from advancing any further into Thracia, probably before Severus reached Rome.

Apparently, Cilo and his forces were not very successful: many soldiers were slain and Niger

advertized a victory on his coins.10

After the defeat, that probably convinced Severus that Cilo

was more valuable as an adviser than as a commander, the senator joined Severus as comes

during the remainder of the expedition. Another comes, the patrician Hedius Rufus Lollianus

Gentianus, like Cilo did not have much recent military experience.11

Nevertheless, he served as

comes thrice at the beginning of Severus‟ reign, in the expedition against Niger, and later in the

first Parthian war and the campaign against Albinus. Birley suggests that Severus and Hedius

Lollianus may have met when the former was governor of Lugdunensis and the latter was on his

way to Moguntiacum (modern Mainz) to command the legion XXII Primigenia.12

Although there

is no evidence that they actually met then and there, it is very unlikely that Septimius Severus did

not know Hedius Lollianus, or the latter‟s father, who was one of the more senior senators in

those days. Severus must at least have been familiar with the gens, which belonged to the

senatorial elite in the late second century, as has been discussed in Chapter 2.

Several other men played a more active role in the battle against Niger, one example

being Claudius Candidus.13

A special army unit drawn from the Pannonian legions (the exercitus

Illyricus) was put under the command of this former eques, who had acquired military experience

under Marcus Aurelius and had been supply official in Marcus‟ second expedition against the

Germans. Under Commodus, Candidus had reached the praetorian rank through adlectio.14

Fitz‟s

9 On the war against Niger, see Birley (1988), 108-120.

10 HA, Vita Sev. 8, 12-13; BMCRE V, 73-74.

11 As legatus legionis XXII Primigeniae, Lollianus Gentianus was sent to Moguntiacum (modern Mainz) during the

reign of Commodus, ca 184. In those days, Germania Superior was afflicted by unrest caused by the revolt of

Maternus, also known as the Bellum Desertorum. On this revolt, see CIL 11.6053, 13.11757; Herodianus 1, 10; HA,

Vita Comm. 16, 2; Pesc. Nig. 3, 3-5. See also Alföldy (1989b); Hekster (2002), 65-67, with further references. When

the German legion VIII Augusta was besieged in 185, the other legions in the area must have been affected by the

unrest as well. On Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus‟ career, see Christol (1981); and Chapter 2, Excursus. 12

Birley (1988), 76. 13

On Claudius Candidus, see PIR² C 823; Leunissen (1989), 381. 14

His adlectio was probably one of Commodus‟ countless appointments to the praetorian rank whereby he obscured

the rank‟s significance, as the Historia Augusta puts it (HA, Vita Pert. 6, 10). Presumably, Marius Maximus was also

one of the many men whom Commodus promoted to the praetorian rank by appointment instead of advancement for

actual service. Replenishing the senate was probably necessary after the Antonine Plague. Cf. Duncan-Jones (1996);

Bagnall (2000); Scheidel (2002); Bruun (2003).

172

suggestion that Claudius Candidus may have been legatus of one the Pannonian legions at the

time of Severus‟ proclamation would help to explain why the emperor appointed Candidus as dux

exercitus Illyrici.15

Candidus‟ appointment could then be seen as a parallel to Marius Maximus,

who was promoted dux exercitus Moesiaci from a comparable position. Marius Maximus, the son

of a procurator, started his senatorial cursus honorum under Marcus Aurelius and gained

considerable military experience as legionary tribune in the Marcomannic war.16

After several

civil-administrative positions under Commodus, he became legatus legionis in Moesia Inferior

under Severus‟ brother Geta. In the war against Niger, an army corps drawn from the Moesian

legions was thus placed under Marius Maximus‟ command.

Candidus defeated Niger‟s ally Asellius Aemilianus at Cyzicus, and shortly thereafter

Niger himself at Nicaea. According to Dio, Candidus led masterfully when his soldiers were on

the verge of taking flight.17

Severus obviously recognized Candidus‟ leadership qualities: he took

regular part in Severus‟ expeditions in the next few years, as will become clear. After Niger‟s

defeat, Marius Maximus was sent to capture Byzantium with his army, in which he succeeded.

Another general sent against Niger was Cornelius Anullinus.18

In 193, he had reached the

high senatorial post of governor of Africa Proconsularis. Yet, he was commander-in-chief (dux)

during the battle at Issus.19

Anullinus‟ ancestors are unknown, but given the rather large number

of positions he held before his consulate, he almost certainly did not belong to a patrician family.

Like Severus, he may have been the son of an eques. He and Severus may have met in Rome at

the beginning of their careers, for Severus was to serve under Anullinus as quaestor during the

latter‟s position as governor of Hispania Baetica in 170. Due to Moorish invasions, however, the

province was taken out of the senate‟s control. According to Birley, Severus‟ appointment to

15

Fitz (1966a), 831ff. Unfortunately, no evidence exists to confirm this hypothesis. It is also possible that Candidus

was in Asia Minor when Severus was proclaimed; he had been an assistant of the governor of Asia and subsequently

curator of Nicomedia and Ephesus. In that case, someone else was commanding the army and turned over his

command to Candidus at his arrival. See Leunissen (1989), 349, note 262, with further references. 16

Marius Maximus was tribunus legionis twice. Birley (1997b), 2698-2699, points out that the double tribunate was

not very common. He suggests (2699, note 52), „that his legate of XXII Primigenia when Maximus was in the legion

was either Clemens or Cerealis, and that he moved to Raetia when his immediate commander was promoted to be

governor there.‟ On Marius Maximus‟ father, L. Marius Perpetuus, see PIR² M 313; Plaum (1960-1961), vol. 1, 411-

414, no. 168; On Marius Maxinus‟ ancestors, see also Birley (1997b), 2695-2697. 17

Dio 75, 6, 5-6. 18

On Cornelius Anullinus, see PIR² C 1322; Thomasson (1996), 77-78, no. 100. 19

According to Dio 75, 7, 1-8, Anullinus was „dux Severi imperatoris in Oriente’ ( ). Cf. Leunissen

(1989), 347, note 244; Thomasson (1996), 78.

173

Baetica probably resulted from a request by Anullinus.20

Anullinus and Severus might also have

had a long-lasting amicitia which went beyond the political sphere.21

This would explain why

such a senior senator, member of the senatorial elite, agreed to take up this military post.

Valerius Valerianus was also deployed again: after his success during the march on Rome,

he led a detachment, possibly the same one as before, to Asia Minor to join the battle against

Niger. Under Anullinus he commanded the cavalry at Issus.22

When the provinces that Niger had won were recaptured, order had to be restored.

Claudius Candidus was sent back into Asia with at least part of his army to pursue the remaining

supporters of Niger, who were declared public enemies as dux adversus rebelles. Fabius Cilo was

appointed governor of Bithynia et Pontus. He may have had to deal with some supporters of

Niger as well, although no specific mention of them was made in the sources. To ensure that no

future governor of Syria would take up the idea of proclaiming himself emperor, the province

was split in two, Syria Coele and Syria Phoenicia.23

The First Parthian War – the expeditio Mesopotamena (195)

Table 3: men involved in the first Parthian war

Name Position

Claudius Candidus Dux exercitus Illyrici

Cornelius Anullinus Legatus Aug/Dux exercitus

Hedius Rufus Loll. Gentianus Comes

Iulius Laetus General (dux?)

Probus Commander of a field army (dux exercitus?)

Sextius Magius Lateranus Dux exercitus

Valerius Valerianus Praepositus summae expeditionis

Immediately after Niger‟s defeat, Severus needed to strengthen his authority in the East. He

started a punitive campaign against the Parthians, who had supported Niger. Since Severus could

not afford to offend the Parthians directly, the so-called expeditio Mesopotamena aimed at the

Osrhoeni of Mesopotamia and „Arabs‟ and „Adiabenians‟, supposedly Parthian vassals.24

20

Birley (1988), 40; 49. 21

Birley (1988), 112; 122. Birley even calls Anullinus „Severus‟ senior marshall‟. The idea of amicitia between

Severus and Anullinus is strengthened by the fact that the emperor granted Anullinus a house in Rome, according to

Epitome de Caesaribus 20, 6. 22

Dio 75, 7, 1. According to Speidel (1985), 325, this detachment was Danubian. 23

Birley (1988), 114-115, with further references. 24

Dio 75, 1, 1 (p. 194-195) The name expeditio felicissima Mesopotamena for Severus‟ first Parthian war appears in

Valerius Valerianus‟ career inscription (AE 1991, 1579 = AE 2001, 01968, Palaestina) and ILS 9098 (Numidia). Cf.

ILS 1144 (Roma). See Speidel (1985), 324. On the expedition, see also Birley (1988), 115, with further references.

174

In his account of the expedition against the Osrhoeni and the Adiabeni, Dio mentions

three generals: Lateranus, Candidus, and Laetus.25

Of these, Claudius Candidus commanded the

Illyrian army again as dux. As noted above, Laetus was probably the same man who had led the

advance guard on its march into Rome in 193. The third general, Sextius Magius Lateranus,

belongs to the group of patrician consulars. His father had been consul ordinarius as colleague of

Lucius Verus in 154, and his grandfather Sextius Cornelius Africanus had been consul ordinarius

in 112 with the emperor Traianus.26

The Septimii were acquainted with the Sextii: Septimius

Severus‟ relative Gaius Septimius Severus (consul suffectus in 160) had participated in a

consilium of Marcus and Commodus in 177 along with Sextius Magius Lateranus‟ father.27

In the battle against the „Arabs‟, Severus again divided the imperial field army into three

units. According to Dio, the divisions were commanded by Laetus, Cornelius Anullinus and one

Probus, who is otherwise unknown.28

Furthermore, Valerius Valerianus was involved in this

battle. Perhaps he was linked to Anullinus again, as he had been in the battle at Issus. Valerianus‟

career inscription calls him praepositus summae [felicissimae expeditionis] Mesopotamenae. It

seems that, after Septimius Severus had initially commanded the expedition, Valerianus was

entrusted with finishing off the Mesopotamian campaign against the Arabs. In the meantime, the

emperor himself went to Gallia with his armies to fight Clodius Albinus. If this is correct,

Valerianus held the strategically most important position in Mesopotamia at that point. As

Speidel argues, „his command over the last phase of the Mesopotamian campaigns proves that

Valerianus was one of Severus‟ most trusted field commanders in AD 195.‟29

In 197, however, as

an attack of the Parthians asked for more drastic interference, the higher-ranked general Laetus

was called back to Mesopotamia.

25

Dio 75, 2, 3 (p. 196-197) 26

Sextius Magius Lateranus‟ full name was T. Sextius Lateranus M. Vibius Ovel[lius? …] Secundus L. Vol[usius

Torquatus?] Vestinus. On him, see PIR² S 666. T. Sextius Magius Lateranus (consul ordinarius 94), and T. Sextius

Africanus, (consul suffectus 59), may have been his ancestors. His ancestry has even be traced back to the

Republican Sextii from Ostia. See stemma 16 in PIR², pars VII, fasc. II, 257. 27

AE 1971, 534 (Banasa, Mauretania Tingitana). Sextius Magius Lateranus‟ father, Sextius Lateranus, was

mentioned third on the list of consiliarii, C. Septimius Severus is the fourth one who is mentioned. For further

discussion of this inscription, see Sherwin-White (1973). 28

Dio 75, 3, 2 (p. 198-199). 29

Speidel (1985), 326.

175

The struggle against Albinus – the expeditio Gallica (195-197)

Meanwhile, hostilities between Severus and his former ally Clodius Albinus had increased. By

giving his elder son Caracalla the title Caesar, Severus deprived Albinus of any hope of

succeeding to the principate. In reaction, Albinus may have contacted senators on the possibility

of a revolt.30

Although the course of events has been unclear, the result was a decisive break

between Severus and Albinus. By the end of 195, after Severus‟ declared him a public enemy,

Albinus responded by proclaiming himself emperor and invading Gallia.31

Table 4: men involved in the battle against Albinus

Name Position

Claudius Candidus Dux adversus rebelles Noricae 196

Dux exercitus Illyrici 196/197

Claudius Claudianus Legatus legionis XIII Geminae et V Macedoniae

(Dacia) 194?/195-196?

Praepositus vexillationum Daciscarum 196?-197

Fabius Cilo Legatus Aug pr pr Moesiae Superioris 195

Dux vexillationum per Italiam exercitus 196

Legatus Augg pr pr Pann. Sup. 197- 201/202?

Hedius Rufus Loll. Gentianus Comes

Iulius Avitus Alexianus Legatus legionus III[I] Flaviae (Moesia Sup.)

Legatus Augg pr pr Raetiae

Iulius Laetus Cavalry commander (dux/strategos)

Iunius Faust. Pl. Postumianus Legatus legionis I Adiutricis in Pannonia Sup.

Marius Maximus Dux exercitus Moesiaci

Septimius Geta Legatus Aug pr pr Daciae

Virius Lupus Legatus Aug pr pr Germaniae Inferioris (dux?)

Virius Lupus, governor of Germania Inferior, was mobilized by Septimius Severus to solve the

problem. He acted as general in a battle against Albinus, but was defeated and many of his

soldiers were slain.32

After initial success of Albinus‟ armies, the tide began to turn early in 197.

Eventually Albinus and his army were defeated near Lugdunum.33

Several names of officers involved in the conflict with Albinus have come down to us.

Again, Claudius Candidus was deployed with his exercitus Illyrici. When he was on his way to

the West with his army in 196, he again had to pursue some rebels, this time probably followers

of Albinus, in Noricum. In 197, Candidus, who had by then reached consular rank, participated in

30

Cf. HA, Vita Sev. 10, 2. 31

On the war against Albinus, see Birley (1988), 121-128. 32

Dio 76, 6, 2. Cf. HA, Vita Sev. 10, 7. Some scholars assume that he was a general with a special commission, but

Leunissen (1989), 242f., argues that Dio would not have used the word strategos in that case. Leunissen finds it more

likely that the governor Virius Lupus commanded the provincial legions. On Virius Lupus, see Chapter 2, Excursus. 33

Battle at Tinurtium: HA, Vita Sev. 11, 1. Battle at Lugdunum: Dio, 76, 6.

176

the battle at Lugdunum. Marius Maximus was also involved: he led his Moesian army from

captured Byzantium to Lugdunum and joined the fight.

A new name pops up among the officers: Claudius Claudianus. This man may have been

identical with the Claudius Claudianus who, as equestrian praefectus cohortis I

Bracaraugustanorum, dedicated an altar to Diana Nemorensis in Dalmatia.34

. In 195, Claudianus

took up a legionary command over two legions stationed in Dacia. Septimius Geta, Severus‟

brother, was governing Dacia at that time. In 196, a special force was formed from within the

Dacian army to participate in the battle against Albinus. Claudianus was to command these

vexillationes, perhaps accompanied by Geta.35

The leading role, however, in the final battle against Albinus at Lugdunum went to Laetus

as cavalry commander. According to Dio‟s account, Severus and the praetorians came to the aid

of the Severan troops when they saw them in danger. As the situation worsened and Albinus‟

troops forced the Severans into retreat, the emperor fell off his horse. At that point, with the

emperor‟s life imperiled, the Severan cavalry under command of Laetus appeared and saved the

day. So Laetus won the victory against Albinus for Severus. Dio suggests that Laetus waited

before he intervened, allegedly hoping that both Severus and Albinus would get killed so that he

himself could be proclaimed emperor. Moreover, Dio claims that Laetus only reacted when he

saw that Severus‟ side was prevailing. The same suggestion can be found in the work of

Herodianus.36

The story on Laetus‟ betrayal may have been made up after his death.

Some others played a minor role in Albinus‟ defeat. First, Hedius Rufus Lollianus

Gentianus again advised Severus as comes. Fabius Cilo had been transferred to Moesia Superior

in 195, no doubt because Severus wanted to put the northern provinces into trusted hands in

anticipation of his conflict with Albinus.37

Second, in the second half of 196, Cilo commanded

detachments of the Italic army which escorted Severus back to Rome on his way from

Mesopotamia. Since Fabius Cilo became governor of Pannonia Superior in 197, it is reasonable

to assume that he escorted the emperor only as far as this province.38

Third, Avitus Alexianus

34

ILS 3245 (Narona, Dalmatia). On Claudius Claudianus, see PIR² C 834; Leunissen (1989), 382. 35

On Geta as governor of Dacia, see Leunissen (1989), 237, with further references. 36

Dio 76, 6, 8; Herodianus 3, 7, 3-7. 37

Cilo may have been present when Caracalla was elevated to the rank of Caesar, probably near Viminacium, capital

of Moesia Superior, in (April?) 196. The same applies to Iulius Avitus Alexianus, legionary legate in Moesia

Superior in those days. Cf. Birley (1988), 122. 38

Birley (1988), 124. According to Birley, Caracalla was left behind with Cilo in Pannonia Superior.

177

probably served under Fabius Cilo as legatus legionis IIII Flaviae, and later was sent to govern

Raetia. Whether Avitus Alexianus played a more active role in the defeat of Albinus is unclear.39

New men might have ascended, such as Iunius Faustinus Placidus Postumianus.40

Most

scholars assign this senator‟s career to the joint reign of Severus and Caracalla, after he had

probably started his senatorial cursus under Commodus as the emperor‟s candidatus as tribunus

plebis and praetor, which indicates patrician status.41

It was presumably Severus who appointed

him iuridicus in northern Italy. Postumianus‟ next position was his first military one: he became

legatus of I Adiutrix, one of the legions which had supported Severus. By 196/197, the legion

must have been back at its main base in Brigetio in Pannonia Superior. It is not unlikely that

Severus marched against Albinus in Lugdunum via Pannonia, gathering additional forces in the

Danubian area. Perhaps legio I Adiutrix even participated in the battle against Albinus. This

would explain the further course of Postumianus‟ career.

The Second Parthian War (197-198)

Soon after Albinus‟ death, Severus focused on the East again. He decided to deal with the

Parthians once more after they had taken Mesopotamia, levying three new legions for the

occasion. The northern half of Mesopotamia was restored to Rome. Yet, two attempts to seize the

strategically important city of Hatra failed.42

The only officer involved in this second Parthian war known to us was Laetus. In the

autumn of 197, he was sent to relieve the city of Nisibis which the Parthians were about to

seize.43

Laetus succeeded and acquired still greater renown. His popularity with the soldiers

became manifest at Hatra in 198, when the soldiers declared that they would not go on a

39

Leunissen (1989), 280. In Alexianus‟ cursus inscription AE 1921, 64 = AE 1963, 42 (Dalmatia), he is called

legatus pro praetore provinciae [Raetiae]. In an earlier dedication to the god Elagabalus from when he was governor

of Raetia (AE 1962, 229, Raetia), he is called praeses. Whether the term indicates military activity is uncertain. 40

The main part of Iunius Faustinus Placidus Postumianus‟ career can be deduced from his cursus inscription CIL

8.597 (Africa Proconsularis). A funerary inscription set up by his son and daughter (CIL 8.11763, Africa

Proconsularis), lists the final part of his career. See Birley (2005), 192-193. It is very likely that the two inscriptions

are related to one and the same person. However, it is also possible that the latter inscription refers to a descendant of

the Postumianus in the former inscription. On Postumianus‟ see also PIR² I 751, cf. 752. 41

Except for Fitz (1966b), 25ff., who suggests a date under Marcus Aurelius. Against his dating, see Alföldy (1969),

50ff.; cf. Birley (2005), 193-194, who warns that the reconstruction of Postumianus‟ career under Septimius Severus

and Caracalla rests on fragile foundations, as the two Augusti in the formula adlecto inter comites Augg nn may even

be Valerian and Gallienus and the governorships could have been held under those emperors and their predecessors

in the 240s and 250s. 42

Dio 76, 9-10. On the second Parthian war, see Birley (1988), 129-145. 43

On Laetus‟ actions in the first Parthian war, see Dio 75, 2-3 (p. 196-197); Birley (1988), 116-117.; on the second

Parthian war, see Dio 76, 9, 1-2; Birley (1988), 127-129.

178

campaign unless Laetus led them. As this threatened his own position, Severus decided that

enough was enough, and Laetus was put to death, though Severus obviously denied that Laetus

was killed on his orders.44

This renders suspicious the story of Laetus‟ betrayal in Lugdunum, as

a possible example of ex morte vilification. If there really had been any reason for Severus to

believe that Laetus betrayed him at Lugdunum, Severus would have been taking a great risk by

sending Laetus to relieve Nisibis by himself. Although Laetus probably remained close to the

emperor during the second Parthian War, there is no mention of him holding any field commands

after he rescued Nisibis, which may suggest that the emperor only then started to distrust Laetus.

Peace in the Empire (198-208)

When the civil and Parthian wars were over, there was peace in the Empire for about ten years.

What happened with Severus‟ military officers during this period?

Sextius Magius Lateranus was only in action during the first Parthian war. Afterward, he

was rewarded with an ordinary consulate in 197. Eck has suggested that Lateranus may have

been proconsul Asiae, but offers no date.45

Cornelius Anullinus‟ role as a military officer was

also over after 195. He was appointed city prefect of Rome in 196 and held a second consulate in

199. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus became censitor in 197/198 in Gallia Lugdunensis and

perhaps also in Hispania Citerior in the next year. After Albinus‟ defeat, many nobles in those

areas who had sided with him were put to death, „a census would be badly needed there at that

point.‟46

In 201, Hedius Lollianus concluded his senatorial career as proconsul Asiae. Fabius Cilo

stayed in Pannonia Superior for some more years, governing this strategically crucial province

when Severus was fighting Albinus and the Parthians, before he succeeded Anullinus as city

prefect in Rome. He held this position until the end of Severus‟ reign and combined it with a

second consulate in 204. Cilo, Lateranus and Anullinus were apparently imperial amici who were

enriched and endowed with houses in the capital by the emperor, according to Aurelius Victor.47

44

Dio 76, 10, 1-3. 45

Based on SEG 36, 1094. For Eck‟s suggestion, see PIR² S 669. The fact that Lateranus‟ father was proconsul of

Africa (168/169) corroborates this assumption, as the family thus belonged to the senatorial elite. 46

Birley (1988), 126. 47

Fabius Cilo was attested as amicus Augustorum, see Epitome de Caesaribus 20, 6. According to Birley (1988),

156, the „domus Cilonis‟ was a palatial mansion and became a city landmark. Cf. Alföldy (1968), 134; 141-142; 159.

179

As for Severus‟ relatives, Geta held a second consulship in 203 with Plautianus as his

colleague, and probably died not long afterwards.48

Avitus Alexianus remained in his position as

governor of Raetia until circa 199/200 and held a suffect consulship, perhaps in absentia, circa

200. Thereafter, he seems to have been out of office for almost eight years.49

Immediately after Albinus‟ defeat, Marius Maximus was made governor of Gallia

Belgica. The decision to put a strong military leader in this province is understandable

considering the trouble in the north-west in the years before, especially in Britannia, which had

been deprived of Roman legions for some time. During or shortly after his position in Belgica,

Marius Maximus held a suffect consulship. As vir consularis, he was first sent to govern

Germania Inferior and then to Syria Coele. After his post in Syria, his career seems to have

experienced a currently inexplicable hiatus, though Birley notes that something similar seemed to

have occurred in the career of his brother Marius Perpetuus.50

Claudius Claudianus‟ case

resembled that of Marius Maximus: after Albinus‟ defeat, he governed Pannonia Inferior, during

which tenure he held a suffect consulate, and then governed Pannonia Superior until circa 206.

Claudius Candidus, who had probably held a consulate before or during the expeditio

Gallica, was sent to govern Hispania Tarraconensis in 197-198. He was entrusted with the special

task of hunting for rebels, i.e. remaining supporters of Albinus. Nothing is heard of him

afterwards. Since his name was erased from his statue base at Tarraco, we may assume that he

fell into disfavor with the emperor and was perhaps executed.51

This may have happened shortly

after the incident with Laetus.

Valerius Valerianus never served in a military office under Severus again, and his career

may not have continued under Severus at all. Perhaps his appointment as procurator of an

unknown province fell under Severus, but his posts as procurator of Syria Palaestina and

48

On Geta‟s death, see Dio 77, 2, 4. 49

Birley (2005), 226, ascribes this long period in which Avitus Alexianus was out of office to the influence of

Plautianus, who was hostile to Iulia Domna and her family. He adds that Varius Marcellus, Alexianus‟ son-in-law,

experienced similar treatment. 50

According to Birley (1997b), 2699, the high favor that they both enjoyed under Caracalla may be a sign of a lack

of favor under Severus caused by Plautianus‟ dominant position. Previously, Birley (1988), 176, had excluded the

possibility that Marius Maximus fell out of favor with Severus, as the former was in high favor in the next reigns. 51

Candidus‟ name was erased from CIL 2.4114 = ILS 1140 (Hispania Citerior). He might have been one of the

friends of Severus who were tried on the ground that they were plotting to kill the emperor, as HA, Vita Sev. 15, 4-6

mentions. The author of the Historia Augusta claims that Plautianus was behind this.

180

praefectus Mesopotamiae et Osrhoenae probably fell under Caracalla.52

Eventually, therefore,

Valerianus reached one of the top positions of the equestrian career, but only after Severus died.53

Iunius Faustinus Placidus Postumianus was made governor of Hispania Lusitania circa

197. The province had supported Albinus and probably experienced prosecutions of Albinus‟

supporters during Postumianus‟ term.54

The governorship thus was more important in those years

than it usually was. Next, Postumianus succeeded Marius Maximus as governor of Belgica and

probably became consul suffectus after this governorship, circa 204/5. He was then sent to govern

Moesia Inferior for some time between 205 and 208. Birley claims that his tenure may have been

very brief, since Postumianus‟ name does not appear on the local coinage.55

Iulius Septimius Castinus precipitated the only actual military activity in this period. He

may have been a kinsman of Severus, bearing the same gentilicium.56

Castinus‟ career started at

the end of Commodus‟ reign, and he was likely tribunus militum of I Adiutrix under Septimius

Severus in Pannonia. Perhaps he served under Geta next as tribunus of V Macedonica. Both

legions had supported Severus in 193. After several civil positions, Castinus became legionary

legate of I Minervia, which was by then stationed at Lugdunum. Between 205 and 208, he was

made dux of several vexillationes formed from legio I Minervia and three other legions stationed

in the Rhine area. These vexillationes were mobilized „against the disloyal and rebellious ones‟,

but it is not clear who these rebels were.57

Finally, Virius Lupus. Immediately after the defeat of Albinus and the British army at

Lugdunum, Lupus was sent to govern Britannia, a sequence which was not unusual.58

The

position of the Romans in the north of the province of Britannia was weak when Lupus arrived.

52

Duncan-Jones (1969) argued that the position of praefectus Mesopotamiae et Osrhoenae only existed from

212/213, when Caracalla deposed Abgar IX as king of Edessa, until the revival of the kingdom Edessa under

Gordianus III. Valerianus‟ position as procurator Syriae Palaestinae may also have been held under Elagabalus. 53

Although Duncan-Jones (1969) does not link the L. Valerius Valerianus who is mentioned on the epitaph from

Pozzuoli to the equestrian commander during Severus‟ civil wars, it is very likely that they were identical. The new

provinces of Mesopotamia and Osrhoene were equipped with two newly raised legions (I and III Parthica). See Dio

55, 24, 4, and Duncan-Jones (1969), 231. 54

Leunissen (1989), 51, note 116. 55

Birley (2005), 194, note 40. 56

Jacques (1982), 85, note 2, warns that „Septimius‟ is a nomen gentile that occurs often. On his origin: Kajanto

(1965), 251-252, mentions that „Castinus‟ is very rare, but „Castus‟ is popular in Africa, and „Iulius Castus‟ occurs

there sixteen times. See also Birley (1988), 215 no. 19, and Leunissen (1989), 363. 57

According to Alföldy (1967), 51, Castinus was dux circa 206-208, before his post as legionary commander in 208.

As dux he had to defeat the remaining supporters of Clodius Albinus. Eck (1972/1973), 248-249, and id. (1985), 249,

no. 77, agrees with Alföldy. Corbier (1973), 654, and Piso (1982), 381, note 51, think Castinus was legatus legionis

before he was appointed dux. Cf. PIR² I 566; Leunissen (1989), 337, note 177. For my purposes, the exact order of

the positions is irrelevant. 58

Leunissen (1989), 242.

181

In the absence of most of the Roman garrison in 196-197, northern Britannia had been plundered

by the Maeatae, who were probably joined by some other tribes. This had led to serious

destruction and many Roman captives. Lupus had to buy off the Maeatae, who were at the point

of bringing in the Caledonii.59

Britannia had been a troublesome province ever since the death of

a governor in a barbarian invasion circa 182/183 and the campaigns of Ulpius Marcellus,

followed by discontent and mutiny in the British legions. Lupus is not heard of again. He was

probably replaced after about three years, in 200. Perhaps Severus consulted him as former

governor and specialist of Britannia before he went on his expedition.

The expeditio Britannica (208-211)

Table 5: the men involved in the expeditio Britannica

Name Position

Alfenus Senecio Legatus Augg pr pr Britanniae 205/207?

Iulius Avitus Alexianus Comes Augg

Iunius Faust. Pl. Postumianus Comes Augg

Oclatinius Adventus Procurator Augg in Britannia 205-207?

In 208, Severus decided to go to Britannia to settle the conflict there. Preparations for the military

expedition may have been started by Alfenus Senecio, when he was governor of the province

between 205 and 207.60

Severus may have met him when Senecio was governor of Syria Coele

circa 200, at the time the emperor and his family were travelling in the East.61

Senecio may still

have been in Britannia in the spring of 208, when Septimius Severus arrived with both his sons.62

Unfortunately, we lack any more details of the beginning Senecio‟s career. However, it is not

unlikely that Senecio was a trusted servant of the emperor who had perhaps served the emperor

well during the Parthian wars. In this respect, he may be compared to his predecessors in

Britannia, Virius Lupus and Valerius Pudens, who had been governor of Pannonia Inferior in

193. They had both supported Severus in the civil wars.

59

Dio 75, 5, 4 (p. 216-217). 60

See Birley (2005), 191. Valerius Pudens is still attested in Britannia in 205. Senecio was probably his successor, so

he probably was in Britannia from 205, or soon after. On Alfenus Senecio, see PIR² A 520; Birley (2005), 188-192. 61

An equestrian procurator named Alfenus Senecio, see was honored with an inscription (and presumably a statue)

by the council at Cuicul (CIL 8.9046). The inscription mentions that he was procurator Augusti Belgicae. Other

inscriptions (ILS 8391, Misenum; CIL 14.4509, Ostia) demonstrate that he was also procurator Mauretaniae

Caesariensis, subpraefectus of the Misenum fleet and subpraefectus vigilum. It is generally assumed that this man

was the father of the governor of Britannia and that he held these appointments in the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and

Commodus. See Birley (2005), 190-191; cf. PIR² A 520. 62

Birley (2005), 161.

182

It is also possible that Oclatinius Adventus, who served as (financial) procurator under

Senecio and whose name appears on some inscriptions beside Senecio‟s, was sent to the island to

make preparations for the imperial expedition, circa 205-207.63

In that case, Adventus‟ arrival

may have sidelined Senecio.64

Adventus seems to have overseen the pay and provisioning of the

army. However, Rankov suggests that, given Adventus‟ previous career in military intelligence,

Severus may have sent him with the special task of recruiting and training scouts, and of gaining

information about local conditions and the strength of the tribes north of Hadrian‟s Wall.65

Iunius Faustinus Placidus Postumianus and Iulius Avitus Alexianus joined Severus as

comites during the expedition.66

Postumianus may have fulfilled his position as praeses

Britanniae during the imperial expedition, as successor of Alfenus Senecio, but his tenure may

also have taken place under Caracalla.67

The aftermath

The fates of Severus‟ military officers after the emperor‟s death varied. As has been mentioned

above, several of them had already disappeared under Severus. Of these, some vanished

mysteriously in what seems to have been the midst of their careers, such as Claudius Candidus

and Claudius Claudianus. Others had reached the top of the senatorial cursus honorum and may

just have retired, such as Anullinus, Lateranus and Hedius Lollianus. Fabius Cilo was still city

prefect under Caracalla, yet shortly after Geta‟s murder he was attacked and humiliated by some

soldiers. Dio reports that it was Caracalla who had commanded the soldiers to kill the city

prefect, but Caracalla stopped them when the populace as well as the city troops began to

protest.68

Soon afterwards, Cilo was replaced as city prefect, and nothing is heard of him

63

ILS 2618 = RIB 1234 + add.; RIB 1462 (Britannia). Birley (2005), 192, suggests „that Adventus, whose

background was rather unusual for a financial procurator […] had been specially ordered by Severus to inspect the

state of the northern frontier because the emperor was contemplating a personal intervention in Britain.‟ On

Adventus, see PIR² O 9; Rankov (1987); Birley (2005), 312-313, with further references. 64

Herodianus 3, 14, 1, claims that the governor had sent a letter to the emperor in which he asked him for help. This

may, however, have been a rhetorical topos, since Dio (77, 10, 6 „wars being won in Britain‟) suggests that the

governor had been dealing with the situation quite well. On this, see Birley (1988), 172, and Birley (2005), 192. It is

also relevant that Adventus‟ career seems to have stopped for a while. We have no information on positions which he

occupied under Septimius Severus after his procuratorship, though his career continued under Caracalla. 65

Rankov (1987), 247-249. 66

On the comites in Britannia, see Alföldy (1969), 49 ff., and Birley (2005), 225-226. 67

Neither Inferior nor Superior appears in the inscription CIL 8.11763 (Africa Proconsularis). This may indicate that

he was governor of an undivided Britain, though this cannot be stated with certainty. Cf. Birley (2005), 194. 68

Dio 78, 4-5, refers to Cilo as Caracalla‟s benefactor and tutor.

183

anymore. Perhaps he indeed fell out of favor with Caracalla. Whatever the reason, it is not

unlikely that he retired, after having reached the pinnacle of the senatorial career.

Marius Maximus continued his career under Caracalla. He became proconsul of Africa

and even served as proconsul of Asia for a double term, at a time when the emperor was present

in the province.69

An extended tenure such as his and the fact that he governed both proconsular

provinces, were unprecedented. Caracalla obviously held Marius Maximus in high regard, but

even after Caracalla‟s death he was praefectus urbi under Macrinus and consul iterum as Severus

Alexander‟s colleague in 223.70

This first generation senator, who began his career as military

officer under Septimius Severus, eventually joined the senatorial nucleus described in Chapter 2.

After Severus‟ death, however, he never again served in offices involving much military power.

The same applies to Valerius Valerianus and Iunius Faustinus Placidus Postumianus.

Valerius Valerianus‟ career probably continued under Caracalla. Although his experience in the

military sphere may have proven useful during his procuratorships, Valerianus no longer received

special commissions in military crises. As prefect of Mesopotamia he reached an equestrian top

position, but he never attained senatorial rank. Postumianus, after his post as praeses Britanniae,

was made praeses Hispaniae, probably in Hispania Citerior.71

Only three of the men involved in military events under Severus continued in offices

which entailed some military responsibility. Iulius Avitus Alexianus became praefectus

alimentorum twice and was imperial comes again, probably in 213 during Caracalla‟s German

wars. The reason for his repeated appointment as praefectus alimentorum is unclear.72

Perhaps it

was just convenient to appoint an experienced man at this position. After all, Alexianus had

probably also been assisting a praefectus alimentorum at the beginning of his career as

procurator in Ostia. Then, Alexianus governed Dalmatia. His term of office was probably not

longer than a year and a half. At the end of Caracalla‟s reign, Alexianus presumably became

proconsul of Asia and in 216/217 he seems to have accompanied Caracalla as comes in

69

IGRR 4.1287. Caracalla visited Thyatira during Marius Maximus‟ proconsulate. 70

According to Leunissen (1989), 310, Marius Maximus was probably replaced as city prefect before 219, since not

Marius Maximus, but Q. Tineius Sacerdos was consul (II) ordinarius with the emperor as his colleague in 219. 71

Problematic in Postumianus‟ case is that the dating of his career cannot be determined with certainty. Birley

admits that a dating in the 240s and 250s is just as well possible. In that case, the significance of the positions as

legatus of legion I Adiutrix and as governor in Lusitania and Belgica would be almost entirely lost. Another problem

is that we cannot be sure whether the praeses Hispaniae et Britanniae is identical with the man of the cursus

inscription of CIL 8.597 (Africa Proconsularis). Postumianus is not mentioned in the historiographical sources. 72

It had happened before, under Marcus Aurelius or Commodus, that the same man, Pollienus Auspex, was

appointed at this position even thrice. See Halfmann (1982), 222, note 19.

184

Mesopotamia.73

According to Dio, Alexianus was sent to Cyprus by Caracalla as assessor

( ), probably member of an equestrian governor‟s consilium. In view of Cyprus‟

location, it logically was relevant in the war‟s provisioning and Alexianus, with his experience in

logistics and food supply, may have advised the governor on this matter.74

On Cyprus, Alexianus

died from old age and sickness, probably already in 217, but certainly before Elagabalus

ascended the throne in June 218.75

Although he was never mobilized by Caracalla at actual

military commands, he was involved in positions concerning military logistics.

Iulius Septimius Castinus, after he governed Pannonia Inferior until 212, was sent to

govern Dacia circa 215.76

Under Macrinus, Castinus was exiled and he spent the rest of his life in

Bithynia. Eventually, he was murdered by Elagabalus, allegedly „because he was energetic

( and was known to many soldiers in consequence of the commands he had held and

of his intimate association with Antoninus‟, as Dio puts it.77

The literary sources refer to an

association between Castinus and Caracalla - Dio even mentions friendship78

- but they never

state kinship. Either way, Castinus must have owed the responsible military tasks he received

after a series of civil offices to some sort of special connection with the imperial household.

Finally, Oclatinius Adventus, who became praefectus praetorio under Caracalla. Like his

colleague Macrinus, Adventus joined Caracalla during the Parthian expedition in Mesopotamia.

As a man of military experience, Adventus may have actually commanded the praetorians during

this campaign.79

By the end of May 216, Caracalla honored him with the ornamenta consularia.80

73

On the date of his proconsulship, see Leunissen (1989), 225. According to Pflaum (1979), 313, Avitus Alexianus

joined Caracalla in Mesopotamia during his war against the Parthians. However, Barnes (1986), 204, doubts this. Cf.

Leunissen (1989), 225, note 67. 74

Alexianus was sent to Cyprus with a special task. Usually, Cyprus was governed by a praetorian proconsul.

However, the island was governed by unusual officers in those years. The governor at the time of Alexianus‟ appoint

was probably the equestrian procurator T. Caesernius Statianus [Quinc]tianus. Halfmann (1982), 223, note 22. 75

Dio 79, 30, 4. 76

Dio 79, 13, 3-4. 77

Dio 80, 4, 3. 78

Dio 79, 13, 2. PIR² I 566, calls Castinus comes of Caracalla, but this probably is a mistake. There is no indication

that Castinus joined the emperor on a journey. On the contrary, Castinus was governing Dacia when Caracalla was in

Bithynia (Nicomedia), Syria (Antioch) and Egypt (Alexandria). If Castinus was indeed comes of Caracalla, this may

be an indication that it had become an honorary title. 79

Pflaum (1960-1961), vol 2, 666, no. 247. 80

HA, Vita Macr. 4, 7, records that Macrinus‟ fellow-prefect was sent away („collega ablegato’) when Caracalla was

murdered. The name Adventus is not specifically mentioned, and it is not clear whether the phrase has a negative

connotation. Magie (1960-1961, Loeb), vol. 2, 57, translates „after his colleague was banished‟, but Adventus might

have been sent away on a mission by the emperor. There is no indication that Adventus had fallen out of favor with

Caracalla, who had granted him consular honors the year before. On the contrary, the words might have been added

to absolve Adventus from any involvement in Caracalla‟s murder.

185

Macrinus elevated Adventus to senatorial rank through an adlectio inter consulares in April 217,

appointed him praefectus urbi in the same year and made him fellow-consul in 218.81

Adventus

was soon replaced by Marius Maximus as city prefect, but he continued as consul even after

Macrinus was overthrown by Elagabalus.82

After this, nothing is heard of Adventus. Given his

old age, it is not unlikely that he died soon afterwards.

Concluding observations

Examining the men commissioned as high-ranking military officers by Severus leads to the

following observations considering power and status: in the very late second and early third

centuries, senators could obviously still exercise a high level of power in the military sphere.

Severus himself was representative of senatorial viri consulares, who governed imperial

provinces and in that capacity held supreme commands over provincial legions. Especially

governors of provinces with two or three legions could become an immediate threat to imperial

authority: those senators had the means (money and troops) to seize imperial power, particularly

during crises when imperial authority was unstable and challenged. The situation in 193, after

Pertinax died, clearly illustrates this. While Didius Iulianus was able to seize power in Rome by

using his fortune to gain support of the praetorian guard, his most important rivals were three

provincial governors: Pescennius Niger in Syria, Clodius Albinus in Britannia and Septimius

Severus in Pannonia Superior. Because the latter had the support of more troops than the others,

he won the imperial throne. Moreover, having himself used his position as governor-commander

to seize the principate, Severus realized should an individual governor control too large a military

force, so it can hardly be coincidental that the provinces of his former rivals were subdivided into

two during or not long after Severus‟ reign.83

81

Dio 79, 14, who mentions that Macrinus was critized by many because of Adventus‟ elevation, since „he could

neither see by reason of old age nor read for lack of education nor accomplish anything for want of experience‟, but

especially since „he had obtained the rule over the city prior to performing the duties of the consulship.‟ Dio even

claims that Macrinus‟ purpose in elevating Adventus was „throwing his own record into the background, since he

himself had seized the imperial office while still a knight‟. It is not difficult to explain Dio‟s contempt, since he as a

senator would certainly be offended to see the new equestrian emperor ignore the principles of senatorial promotion. 82

Dio 80, 8, 2. 83

Syria was divided into Syria Phoenice and Syria Coele in 193. The exact date of the subdivision of Britannia into

Britannia Inferior and Britannia Superior, which Herodianus 3, 8, 2, places ca 197/198, is heavily disputed. Graham

(1966), 97-107, however, convincingly argues that the division must have occurred after Severus‟ death in 211,

probably under Caracalla ca 213/214. On the discussion, see Birley (2005), 333-336, with further references.

186

Moreover, senators were deployed as troubleshooters, serving as generals of special army

detachments drawn from the legions. Such generals (mostly duces or occasionally praepositi)

were linked to these detachments for a specific purpose, a particular military expedition. If

proven successful, a general and his field army could be put into action at other campaigns as

well. Although Severus sent a provincial governor to remedy at least one military crisis (Virius

Lupus against Albinus), he usually sent men from outside the province to solve military crises.

Occasionally, especially in his earlier campaigns, Severus chose senators from senatorial families

who were in the more advanced (consular) stage of their careers as generals, such as Anullinus.

The support of such men may helped legitimatize his position toward senators in his early reign.

On the other hand, senators of lower rank, most of them homines novi, also commanded

considerable forces in critical times.84

Marius Maximus and Septimius Castinus were mere legati

legionis before they were made duces. Candidus and Claudianus were also of praetorian rank at

the time of their (first) generalships.

Other senators had commissions as advisers (comites) in the imperial entourage during

campaigns. Under Severus, this group also contained senators who had little or no military

experience, but who could nonetheless contribute to the campaign. Their wealth, their status and

influence (particularly in Rome) and of course their connections with other senators helped

Severus strengthen his position, which the emperor obviously considered necessary at the

beginning of his career. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus is a good example of such a senator,

as well as Fabius Cilo, who was initially sent to Thracia to prevent Niger from advancing any

further westward, but who in a wise move was transferred to the emperor‟s entourage after his

defeat. Iunius Faustinus Placidus Postumianus and Iulius Avitus Alexianus, comites in Britannia,

were of a different order, as they had gained experience in the military and logistics of war.

Beneath the senatorial generals operated a group of lower commanders, primarily equites.

Valerius Valerianus, for instance, was as equestrian commander (praepositus) subordinate to

Anullinus. The same seems to have applied to Alexianus, who operated under Fabius Cilo in

Moesia Superior circa 195. Oclatinius Adventus, who may have been sent to Britannia with a

special task in preparing Severus‟ expedition, was perhaps not subordinate to Alfenius Senecio.

On the other hand, in view of the obscurity of his exact range of duties and his extraordinary

84

Another provincial governor who may have played a role in Severus‟ battle against Albinus was Geta, but as he

was Severus‟ brother, deploying him did not involve too much risk.

187

career, he may not have been representative of the position of equites involved in the military

under Severus.

As said above, Severus sought senatorial support at the beginning of his career, but some

senatorial generals, especially senators from senatorial families, served only sporadically in

military events and were then transferred to positions of a more civil-administrative nature.

Severus thus made sure that those men whose status and connections gave them easy access to

money and senatorial support were not given too many troops, since a concentration of military

power under any of them would increase the danger of a coup.85

Other military officers saw

action more often, since Severus obviously needed capable generals as long as he had not ended

the civil and Parthian wars. Whatever happened exactly will always be unclear, but after the

incident with Laetus, Severus seems to have exercised more restraint in his attitude toward his

(former) generals, even those who were homines novi. Most of them were granted consular rank

and were appointed consular governor once or twice before their careers were (temporarily)

stopped. Others‟ careers ended abruptly immediately after 198. Some generals served again in

civil-administrative posts under Caracalla. It is striking, however, that these former generals were

never again commissioned in times of war, not even by Severus during his campaign in Britannia.

Severus thus made sure that none of his high-ranking military officers was able to combine high

senatorial status and military power and become a threat to his imperial authority. The trend

toward replacing senatorial officers, legionary commanders and governors of military provinces

with equestrian officers, who were appointed agens vice praesidis or agens vice legati legionis,

which started from 200 onward, should perhaps also be seen in this perspective.

In sum, when Severus claimed the imperial throne, his power was essentially based on the

support of the legions stationed in the Rhine and Danube area. During the wars in the first years

of his reign, Severus depended much on his military officers. At that point, he tried to strengthen

his position by seeking support among the senatorial elite. The combination of their high status

and some experience in military offices made them suitable candidates for posts as military

officers. Alongside them, other senators, who had gained more experience in the military sphere,

especially homines novi, but who could not compete in status with the senatorial elite, were also

85

Cf. HA, Vita Sev. 15, 4-6: „…he even went so far as to bring charges against several of his own friends on the

ground that they were plotting to kill him. He put numerous others to death on the charge of having asked Chaldeans

or soothsayers how long he was destined to live; and he was especially suspicious of anyone who seemed qualified

for the imperial power…‟

188

appointed as high-ranking military officers. Militarily skilled equites were appointed as senatorial

generals‟ subordinates. Only rarely did they have final responsibility in military crises. Between

198 and 208, however, when the Empire was at peace, Severus was able himself to dispose of

those men who could pose a threat to his position: some were promoted to high civil-

administrative posts; others disappeared from our view, permanently or temporarily. A few years

later, when Severus needed military officers for his British expedition, none of his former

generals of the civil and Parthian wars went into action again.

4.2. Gallienus and his military officers

In 253, Valerianus was proclaimed emperor. In the same year, he made his son Gallienus co-

emperor. Gallienus became the Empire‟s sole ruler when Valerianus was captured by the Persians

in 260, the first time that the Empire had experienced the humiliation of a ruler falling into hostile

hands. The consequences manifested themselves immediately: while barbaric tribes invaded the

border regions continually, usurpers emerged in both the East and the West.

The beginning of Gallienus’ sole reign: the West (260-262)

Table 6: men involved in military events in the West (260-262)

Name Position

Aureolus Dux equitum 260/268

Claudius (II Gothicus) Dux ?? ca 262?

Ingenuus Senior commander (dux) of (vexillationes of) the

Pannonian (and Moesian) legions (governor?)

253/260

Postumus Officer (dux?) in command of (vexillationes) of

Rhine legions (or governor of Germania Inf.)260

Regalianus Dux (or governor?) in Illyricum (253/260)

When the news of Valerianus‟ capture reached the West, Germanic tribes had already penetrated

the Rhine border and seized the Agri Decumates (the area between the Rhine and the Neckar).

Gallienus probably was in or near Milan fighting the Iuthungi, who had by then invaded northern

Italy.86

Gallienus finally defeated the Germanic invaders in midsummer AD 260. But probably at

the same time a certain Ingenuus, whose origins and early career are a mystery to us, headed a

86

Sources for the invasions in the West: Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 3; Zosimus 1, 37; Zonaras 12, 24;

Eutropius 9, 8; Orosius 7, 22, 7. See Potter (2004), 256-257; Drinkwater (2007), 52-55, with further references.

189

revolt against Gallienus in Pannonia.87

Ingenuus‟ office at the time of his rebellion cannot be

determined with certainty. According to the sources, he „governed‟ (Lat: regebat) or „took care

of‟ (Lat: curans) the Pannonian provinces or legions.88

The Historia Augusta reports that

Ingenuus was proclaimed emperor by the Moesian legions. In that case, it is more likely that

Ingenuus was a dux who held the command over (vexillationes in) the Pannonian and Moesian

legions than a provincial governor of several Illyrian provinces.89

This conjecture finds support in

the parallels of appointments in those days in Illyricum. The date of Ingenuus‟ usurpation has

been heavily disputed, because of unclear literary sources. Nowadays it is assumed that it took

place in 260, in reaction to Valerianus‟ defeat and capture.90

It has been suggested that Ingenuus

was supervisor of Gallienus‟ son Valerianus and that Ingenuus‟ position became insecure after

Valerianus II died in 258. Although this may have been an additional motive for the usurpation,

this hypothesis lacks confirming evidence.91

As Gallienus found himself in the middle of a campaign against the Iuthungi, he sent

Aureolus to solve the situation in Pannonia. The Historia Augusta reports that Aureolus,

allegedly a man of humble birth from Dacia, served in the army under Valerianus.92

By 260, he

seems to have risen to the position of cavalry commander, in which capacity he fought against the

usurper Ingenuus.93

Using the advantage of the mobility of the cavalry, Aureolus defeated

87

Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 2 called him Ingebus. Orosius 7, 22, 10 called him Genuus. In most

souces, however, he is called Ingenuus. On Ingenuus, see PIR² I 23; PLRE I, Ingenuus 1, Bleckmann (1992), 226-

237, Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1162-1163, with further references. 88

HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 9, 1: „qui Pannonias tunc regebat’; Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 2: ‘curans

Pannonos’. 89

Cf. Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 242; 262-263, who assume that Ingenuus held a „provinzübergreifenden

Sonderkommando in beiden pannonischen und wohl auch moesischen Provinzen‟. Luther (2008), 326-327, however,

considers Ingenuus governor of the Pannonian and Moesian provinces. 90

If we may believe HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 9, 1, Ingenuus was proclaimed emperor in the consulship of Tuscus and

Bassus, AD 258. Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 2, and Zonaras 12, 24, on the other hand, date the revolt

after the capture of Valerianus in AD 260. Fitz (1966c) has argued that the revolt should be dated in 258. This date

was accepted by De Blois (1976), 4. However, more recently, Drinkwater (1987), 104-105, and Potter (1990), 52,

have argued convincingly that the revolt should be dated in 260. That the date is still debateable, however, follows

from propositions referred to in Drinkwater (2007), 54-55, to date the revolt mid-259 into early 260. Cf. Goltz-

Hartmann (2008), 262-263, note 203, with further references. 91

See Fitz (1966c), 26-28; Drinkwater (1987), 22; 103; Bleckmann (1992), 226-227, with further references. 92

On Aureolus‟ humble birth and Dacian origins, see Syncellus 717 (Mosshammer (1984), p.467). Cf. De Blois

(1976), 43: „According to the romanticised account given by Zonaras (12, 24) Aureolus was a Getan shepherd. He

entered the army, distinguished himself in the stables and ended up as Gallienus‟ cavalry commander.‟ On Aureolus

entering the army under Valerianus: HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 10, 14. 93

Aureolus as general in Illyricum: HA, Vita Gall. 2, 6; 3, 3; Trig. Tyr. 11, 1; Aureolus as cavalry commander:

Zosimus 1, 40, 1 ( ); Zonaras 12, 24-25 ( ). Aureolus

was the first general of whom it is claimed that he commanded a new corps of mobile cavalry which Gallienus

composed from detachments and rearrangements of the cavalry of legions. Aureolus is referred to and described as

190

Ingenuus at Mursa (Pannonia Inferior).94

Ingenuus then took his own life or was killed by his

attendant soldiers during his flight.95

Ingenuus‟ defeat did not end the problems in Illyricum, for Danubian troops proclaimed

Regalianus emperor against Gallienus in Moesia.96

The Historia Augusta claims that Regalianus

was of Dacian origin and that he had been made dux Illyrici by Valerianus.97

Some scholars

thought he was a senator, asserting that he was the governor of several senatorial Illyrian

provinces (Moesia, Pannonia Superior). Against this, several other scholars suggest that he was

sent to Illyricum as military dux and not as governor. This view, according to which he was not

necessarily of senatorial rank is just as plausible, if not far more likely.98

It is unclear to what extent Regalianus was involved in Ingenuus‟ revolt. If we are to

believe Aurelius Victor, Regalianus gathered the survivors of Ingenuus‟ coup and continued the

latter‟s rebellion.99

As both of them operated in the same area, it is unlikely that Regalianus was

unaware of Ingenuus‟ revolt. Even if he did not support or actively interfere in it, he may have

given Gallienus the idea that he did by avoiding any serious attempt to put the rebellion down. If

so, he had no other choice than to claim the imperial throne for himself after Ingenuus‟ defeat.

Regalianus fought successfully against the Sarmatae, who threatened the Danubian

provinces, but was defeated not much later. According to the Historia Augusta, a coalition of the

Roxolani (a Sarmatic tribe) with help from his own soldiers and with provincials who feared

Gallienus‟ reprisals, killed him.100

As Gallienus was still dealing with the Iunthungi in Italy at

hipparchos, but no official terminology is being used to describe the position, as Simon (1980), 437, points out. On

Aureolus as a general of a new corps of mobile cavalry, see Paschoud (1996), 108. On Gallienus‟ cavalry reforms,

see also Simon (1980), 435-452; Bleckmann (1992), 226-237. On Aureolus‟ role in Ingenuus‟ defeat, see Zonaras

12, 24; cf. Bleckmann (1992), 227-228; Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 263. 94

On Ingenuus‟ defeat, see HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 9; Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 2; Eutropius 9, 8;

Zonaras 12, 24. 95

HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 9, 4, claims that Ingenuus committed suicide. Zonaras, 12, 24, claims that he was killed by his

soldiers.The fact that Ingenuus issued no coins, indicates that he reigned for only a short time. 96

On Regalianus, see PIR² R 36; PLRE I, Regalianus, and Bleckmann (1992), 237-239; Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt

(2008), 1163, with further references. On Regalianus‟ revolt, see HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 10; Epitome de Caesaribus 32,

3. 97

Dacian origin is claimed by HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 10, 8, which also asserts that Regalianus was a kinsman of

Decebalus, the king of Dacians whom Traianus defeated in 107, which is very questionable. On Regalianus‟ position

as dux Illyrici: HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 10, 1; 10, 9. 98

Scholars who assume that Regalianus was a senatorial governor are Barbieri (1952), 307, no. 1712; Degrassi

(1952), 71; Thomasson (1972-1990), 108; 130; Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 264; Heil (2008a), 723, note 36, with further

references. For the view that Regalianus was a military dux, see RE 5, 1869ff., based on HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 10, 8:

„vir in <re> militari semper probatus‟; cf. Christol (1986), 147-149. Cf. PIR² R 36, with further references. 99

Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 2. 100

HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 10, 1-2. Cf. Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 2; Eutropius 9, 8, 1, in which Gallienus

(i.e. Aureolus?) is mentioned as Ingenuus‟ killer. The account of the Historia Augusta was accepted by several

191

that time, the emperor seems to have been unable to deal with Regalianus‟ rebellion himself.

Although none of our sources says so, some have assumed that Aureolus was involved in

Regalianus‟ defeat.101

Either way, Regalianus‟ revolt appears to have been neither lasting nor

widespread.102

In an attempt to end invasions of tribes from outside the Empire in the Rhine and Danube

area, Gallienus forged treaties with local kings. When Gallienus fought barbarian tribes on the

Rhine, he eventually won the upper hand by making peace with a Germanic king who thereafter

guarded the Rhine frontier in Gallia.103

Unfortunately, little is known about the exact

circumstances of this agreement. We are better informed on a pact Gallienus struck with Attalus,

king of the Marcomanni, on the middle Danube. The Marcomanni had invaded Pannonia in 254.

It was probably around 258 that Gallienus came to an alliance with Attalus, allowing the

Marcomanni to settle in Pannonia. Although the hostile senatorial sources accused Gallienus of

doing this to win Attalus‟ daughter Pipa as a concubine, the pact makes more sense as an attempt

to outsource the defense of parts of the frontier regions into foreign hands. Speidel argues that the

Marcomanni not only served as border guards but also as mobile elite forces, high-ranking units

of the imperial field army, with their king, rather than Roman officers, in command.104

Despite all these efforts, Gallienus‟ authority was not restored completely in the West. He

was faced with one more usurper, who would accomplish segregation within the western part of

the Empire: Cassianius Latinius Postumus.105

During the revolt of Ingenuus, Gallienus put

Postumus in charge of the armies guarding Gallia and the Rhine area, perhaps as dux or governor,

but his exact position cannot be determined.106

Apparently, Postumus‟ troops were displeased for

scholars. See Fitz (1966c), 58-63; Drinkwater (1987), 105. On Gallienus fighting against the Alamanni at the same

time, see Halfmann (1986), 237; Drinkwater (2007), 54-55. 101

See Saria (1937); Alföldi (1967), 101f.; Fitz (1966c). 102

The small number of coins struck by Regalianus suggests that his reign was very short. Furthermore, all the

coinage of Regalianus and his wife were struck over other old coins, and the only mint to issue coins for them was

the mint of Carnuntum (Pannonia), which seems to have been the center of Regalianus‟ revolt. HA, Vita Gall. 9, 1,

suggests that Regalianus was still in power in 263, but this seems incorrect: see PIR² R 36, with further references. 103

Zosimus 1, 30. 104

On Gallienus‟ treaty with the Marcomanni, see Epitome de Caesaribus 33, 1; Speidel (2006), 73-76. On

Germanic kings as Roman army tribunes, see id. (2006), 75, note 14, with further references. 105

His full name can be found in several inscriptions, for instance, CIL 2.4943 = ILS 562 (Hispania

Citerior);13.8879; 8882-3; 9855-6; 8972, 9023 = ILS 561 (Lugdunensis), AE 1924, 1 (Britannia); AE 1958, 58

(Aquitania). Epitome de Caesaribus 32, 3, calls him Cassius Labienus Postumus. 106

HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 3,9 (‘Transrhenani limitis dux et Galliae praeses‟), Zosimus 1, 38, 2 („barbaris per Galliam

praesidebat‟), Zonaras 12, 24. Perhaps Postumus was dux ripae or dux limitis, or praeses or senatorial legatus in

Germania Inferior, as Drinkwater (1987), 25-26, and Eck (1985), 222-224, suggest. Eck (2004), 561-562, however,

asserts that Postumus was „ritterlicher Ambtsträger mit einem umfassenden militärischen Aufgabenbereich‟. See

192

some reason and decided to rebel. They proclaimed their commander emperor, probably in the

spring or early summer of 260.107

Postumus and his troops marched on Cologne and besieged the

city, in which Gallienus‟ son Saloninus and his guardian Silvanus had their headquarters.108

Eventually, the garrison of Cologne handed these two members of Gallienus‟ familia over to

Postumus and they were put to death. Postumus became the first emperor of the so-called „Gallic

empire‟; he controlled not only the provinces of the Rhineland, but also the inland provinces of

Gallia (except Narbonensis) and Britannia.109

When Postumus seized power, Gallienus was finishing his campaign against the

Alamanni, followed by a stay in Rome. His successful general Aureolus was restoring Gallienus‟

authority in the East, after the Macriani had seized power (see below). Although there are

indications that Aureolus was sent against Postumus in 262, the available literary evidence is

downright confusing. The Historia Augusta claims that Aureolus seized imperial power around

262, after the defeat of the Macriani, but also records that Aureolus joined Gallienus not much

later in an attempt to overthrow Postumus; these two claims seem to rule each other out.110

According to the Historia Augusta, however, Gallienus reconciled with Aureolus after his

Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1126, summing up all the suggestions, with further references. According to

Eutropius 9, 9, 1, Postumus was of humble origin. The epigraphic and numismatic evidence suggest that Postumus

had been awarded ornamenta consularia before his usurpation, which would point to high standing at the imperial

court of Gallienus. See König (1981), 52; 66. Postumus must also have been superior to M. Simplicinius Genialis, vir

perfectissimus, agens vice praesidis, commanding soldiers of the province of Rhaetia, Germany, and by the militia,

who is mentioned in AE 1993, 1231 (Augsburg). See Potter (2004), 256. 107

HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 3, 2-4; Gall. 4, 3; Zosimus 1, 38, 2; Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 8; Epitome de

Caesaribus 32, 3; Eutropius 9, 9.The date of Postumus‟ revolt is highly disputed. Currently it is generally assumed

that it took place in AD 260, between May and July. See Potter (2004), 256-257, who quotes the inscription found in

Augsburg (AE 1993, 1231); cf. König (1981), 4-19; Drinkwater (1987), 95-102; Strobel (1993), 245; Jehne (1996). 108

According to Zosimus 1, 38, 2 and Zonaras 12, 24, Silvanus (called Albanus by Zonaras), was entrusted with the

care of Gallienus‟ son Saloninus, while Postumus was left in command of the Rhine frontier. HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 3, 1,

claims that Postumus was entrusted with the care of Saloninus, but has probably mistaken him for Silvanus. See

Bleckmann (1992), 245. It has been suggested that Silvanus was praefectus praetorio in 260. Howe (1942), 81, no.

50; König (1981), 47, posits that Silvanus merely carried out the civil duties of the praetorian prefect and that the

tension between Postumus and Silvanus was caused by tension between bureaucracy and the military. According to

Bleckmann (1992), 246, note 101, such a sharp division between the military and bureaucracy was unlikely during

the reign of Gallienus. Allegedly, a quarrel between Postumus and Silvanus over the distribution of booty taken from

barbarians caused the rebellion. On this matter, see Zon. 12, 24; Bleckmann (1992), 242-248, with further references. 109

According to Drinkwater (1987), 27-28; 116ff., Postumus gained control over the entire west soon after the

summer of AD 260, well before 261. There is no evidence that Postumus actually intended to create a separate

imperium. Only Eutropius 9, 9, 3, mentions a Galliarum imperium. In his propaganda, Postumus placed himself in

the tradition of the emperors of the central Empire, and his administration was patterned after the central Empire. 110

On Aureolus‟ imperial acclamation, see HA, Vita Gall. 2, 6; 3, 1; Tyr. Trig. 11, 1; 12, 2; 12, 14; 18, 1; 18, 3. On

Aureolus fighting Postumus and the reconciliation, see HA, Vita Gall. 4, 6; 7, 1; 21, 5; Tyr. Trig. 11, 3; Aurel. 16, 1.

193

attempt to seize power.111

The date of this campaign against Postumus, in which Gallienus seems

to have recaptured Raetia, is highly disputed; it may have taken place later in Gallienus‟ reign.112

The Historia Augusta claims that another man was involved as dux in Gallienus‟

campaign against Postumus: Aurelius Claudius, better known as the emperor Claudius II

Gothicus.113

Claudius was allegedly born in Illyricum during Caracalla‟s reign.114

References to

Claudius‟ early career can be found in letters attributed to Decius, Valerianus and Gallienus in

the Historia Augusta, which are generally considered fictitious. According to these letters,

Claudius served several tenures as tribunus and was made general of Illyricum (dux totius

Illyrici) by Valerianus, commanding the armies of Thracia, Moesia, Dalmatia, Pannonia and

Dacia. The posts, like the letters, were probably inventions.115

However, it is not unlikely that

Claudius had served in the army for quite some time, beginning no later than Gallienus‟ reign.116

Whether an attempt to regain the Gallic part of the Empire was made in 262 or not

remains uncertain. What can be concluded is that any possible attempts were unsuccessful: for

the time being, the Gallic empire continued to exist.

The beginning of Gallienus’ sole reign: meanwhile in the East (260-262)

Table 7: men involved in military events in the East (260-262)

Name Position

Aureolus Dux equitum 260/268

Ballista Praefectus praetorio or dux under Valerianus

Praefectus praetorio under the Macriani

Domitianus Dux under Aureolus 261

Fulvius Macrianus Procurator arcae et praepositus annonae during

111

The possibility that the author of the Historia Augusta confused the situation and Aureolus‟ imperial acclamation

in 268 with the course of events in this previous campaign against Postumus should not be ruled out. On this matter,

see Alföldi (1967), 2-3; Bleckmann (1992), 248-251; 254-255; Paschoud (1996), 108. 112

See Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 274, note 240, supplying further references on the suggested dates for this campaign.

They date it ca 266-267. Gallienus was allegedly wounded in the battle against Postumus, see HA, Gall. 4, 4-6; Trig.

Tyr.3, 5; Zonaras 12, 23. 113

HA, Vita Gall. 7, 1. Cf. Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 274, note 239. 114

HA, Vita Claud., 11, 9, claims that Claudius was of Dalmatian or Dardanic orgin. Cf. HA, Vita Claud. 14, 2:

„Illyricianae gentis vir‟. The information may have been invented by the Historia Augusta‟s author. The claims that

Claudius was the son of a Gordianus (Epitome de Caesaribus 34, 1) and that he was related to Probus (HA, Vita

Prob. 3, 2-4), are generally considered fictitious, as well as his connection to Constantius Chlorus, which was made

public only in the panegyric of 310 (HA, Vita Claud. 13, 1-3; Pan. Lat. 6, 2, 2 (Panegyric of Constantius, ed.

Mynors-Nixon-Rodgers (1994), 219-220; 573). 115

On this, see Damerau (1934), 21-24, and Syme (1971), 215-216. Cf. Hartmann (2008a), 298. If Claudius was

indeed general in Illyricum, one would expect him to have been involved in the campaigns against Ingenuus and

Regalianus as well. Yet, no mention of this is made in the sources. 116

It is noteworthy that the fourth-century author of the Historia Augusta credited Valerianus with appointing

Claudius as dux in Illyricum. Perhaps Illyricum acted as a transitional area between the territory under Gallienus‟

care in the West and Valerianus‟territory in the East, where additional leadership was badly needed.

194

Valerianus‟ Persian campaign 259/260

Memor In charge of Egypt‟s corn supply 262

Mussius Aemilianus Praefectus Aegypti 260-261

Septimius Odaenathus Exarchos of Palmyra 250s

Governor of Syria Phoenice? 258

Troubleshooter in the East (dux Romanorum and

corrector/rector Orientis) from 260/261 onward

Theodotus Dux commanding a fleet and troops 261-262

Praefectus Aegypti 262-263

Valens Proconsul Achaeae and/or military commander

in Macedonia 260/261

After the Persians had captured Valerianus and while Gallienus was far away in the West, the

eastern troops wanted to choose their own emperor. Two men, who had accompanied Valerianus

on his Persian campaign, came to the fore: Ballista and Fulvius Macrianus. Ballista‟s office at the

time of Valerianus‟ capture is uncertain. According to the Historia Augusta, Ballista was

Valerianus‟ praefectus. Although the author does not specify the prefecture, it is generally

assumed that he referred to Ballista as Valerianus‟ praetorian prefect. However, Ballista is also

referred to as a general (dux; ). Whichever title he held, Ballista campaigned with

success against the Persians during Valerianus‟ campaign.117

Fulvius Macrianus, as discussed in Chapter 3 (section 3.1), organized money and supplies

for the army in the East during Valerianus‟ Persian expedition. According to Eusebius, Macrianus

did not help Valerianus when he was captured by the Persians.118

Allegedly, Ballista immediately

offered Macrianus the imperial throne.119

Macrianus had control over the imperial treasure and

the army supplies in the East and thus had the most essential resources at his disposal. He was

also able to mint coins. Furthermore, the support of Ballista, who had been successful against the

Persians, would contribute to the legitimization of his claim for power. Nevertheless, Macrianus

refused and suggested that his sons, Macrianus minor and Quietus, share the emperorship. They

were proclaimed not long afterwards, their rule being accepted in the East including Egypt.120

117

On Ballista as (praetorian) prefect, see HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 12, 1. On Ballista as general, see HA, Vita Val. 4, 4;

Zonaras 12, 23 (calling him Kallistos); Syncellus 716 (Mosshammer (1984), p. 466). The author of the Historia

Augusta states (HA, Vita Tyr. Trig. 18, 12-13) that even as he was writing his account, the reports on Ballista were

doubtful and inconsistent. On Ballista, see PIR² B 41; PLRE I, Ballista; Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 259-262. On

Ballista as praetorian prefect under Valerianus, see Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1073, PPO 14, with further

references. 118

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 7, 23, 1. 119

HA, Vita Gall., 1, 2-3; Trig. Tyr., 12, 3-12; 14, 1. 120

On Macrianus maior‟s refusal and the reasons for it, see HA, Vita Gall. 1, 3; Tyr. Trig. 12, 12; Eusebius, Historia

Ecclesiastica 7, 10, 8; Zonaras 12, 24; Continuator Dionis, Petrus Patricius, Excerpta de Sententiis, ed. Boissevain, p.

264, 159. HA, Vita Gall. 1, 3; Tyr. Trig. 12, 12, mentions that Macrianus became emperor together with his sons, but

195

Ballista was sent to Asia Minor, where he triumphed over the Persians again. Then he returned to

Syria, where he became praetorian prefect of the Macriani.121

While Macrianus maior and

Macrianus minor marched westwards to provoke a confrontation with Gallienus, Quietus and

Ballista stayed in the East. Since Gallienus was at that time dealing with a raid of Iuthungi in

northern Italy, he sent Aureolus in response to their provocation. Aureolus‟ dux Domitianus

finally defeated the Macriani at the Balkans in the summer or autumn of 261. The unsuccessful

emperors were then killed by their own soldiers.122

After his father and brother had been defeated in Illyricum, Quietus lost control in the

East, while another man gained power: Septimius Odaenathus.123

Odaenathus was born circa 220

in Palmyra, which was by that time a colonia within the Roman Empire.124

He seems to have

been from a noble Palmyran family.125

The name Septimius may indicate that Odaenathus‟

family had received Roman citizenship under one of the Severan emperors. In that case it is likely

that Odaenathus‟ family was a leading kin in Palmyra since about the beginning of the third

century.126

Little is known about Odaenathus‟ career before Valerianus‟ capture. In the early

250s, Odaenathus was promoted to exarchos („chief‟) of Palmyra.127

In this position, Odaenathus

had full military authority, which enabled him to reinforce the troops of Palmyra.128

At about the

same time, he was granted senatorial status, which promoted him from the local Palmyran elite

into the imperial elite („Reichsaristokratie‟) and enabled him to occupy positions in the imperial

service.129

By granting him senatorial status, Rome supported Odaenathus‟ ascent. Circa 257/8,

seems to be mistaken. The report in HA, Vita Tyr. Trig. 12, 10, that the sons of Macrianus had both served as military

tribunes under Valerianus, is probably fictitious. On the Macriani, see PIR² F 546; PLRE I, Macrianus 2; Macrianus

3; PIR² F 547; PLRE I, Quietus 1. See Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 260, note 195, with further references, and 261, note

196, with references on where their rule was accepted. 121

Ballista as praetorian prefect of the Macriani, see HA, Vita Gall., 3, 2; Trig. Tyr., 14, 1; 18, 13. Zonaras 12, 24,

refers to him as cavalry commander ( ). 122

HA, Vita Gall. 2, 5-7; 3, 1; Tyr. Trig. 11, 1-2; 12, 12-14; Zonaras 12, 24. On Domitianus (PIR² D 114) as dux

Aureoli, see HA, Vita Gall. 2, 6; Trig. Tyr. 12, 14 ; 13, 3. 123

On Odaenathus, see PIR² S 472; PLRE I, Odaenathus. On his career, see Hartmann (2001), 86ff., and Hartmann

(2008c), 346-351, with further references, 124

Millar (1990), 42-46. 125

According to Zosimus 1, 39, 1, Septimius Odaenathus was highly esteemed because the emperors had honored his

ancestors. A group of bilingual inscriptions (Palmyrene Aramaic and Greek) render Odaenathus‟ ascendants. See

Gawlikowski (1985). 126

Hartmann (2001), 88-90, suggests that Roman citizenship was bestowed upon the family in the mid-second

century. He acknowledges, however, the importance of the family at the beginning of the third century. 127

Gawlikowski (1985), 257 n. 13 = SEG 35, 1497 = 38, 1580. 128

On the military connotations of the title exarchos, see Hartmann (2001), 92-94. Potter (1990), 389, also suggests

that the title reflected Odaenathus‟ command of the Palmyrene militia. Eventually, Odaenathus‟ son Hairan was also

given the title exarchos, which turned the position into a heriditary post. See Hartmann (2001), 102. 129

Hartmann (2001), 97, claims that Odaenathus was accepted into the senate through adlectio.

196

Odaenathus became vir consularis, either by holding an actual suffect consulship, by being

accepted inter consulares, or by being granted ornamenta consularia.130

Inscriptions which can

be dated around 258, call Odaenathus . This Greek term may have

honored Odaenathus for reaching consular rank, as Potter argues, but can also indicate that

Odaenathus was governor of Syria Phoenice at that point.131

After Ballista had defeated the Persians at Cilicia in the summer of 260, Odaenathus attacked

them at the Euphrates, while they were retreating, after which they withdrew from Roman

territory.132

Ballista and Quietus retreated to Emesa, where they heard the news of Macrianus

maior‟s and minor‟s deaths. Then, the city‟s inhabitants killed Quietus in the autumn of 261. It

remains unclear whether Ballista instigated this or whether Odaenathus played a role.133

Ballista

himself was probably killed soon afterwards by Odaenathus.134

In 260, Gallienus gave

Odaenathus an official position as troubleshooter in the East. Although his exact titles are not

directly attested, it has been suggested that he was made dux Romanorum after his victory over

the Persians and then corrector totius Orientis after Quietus‟ defeat. In that way, he united the

highest available military and civil power in the area and he was thus de facto ruling the East.135

Apparently, Gallienus accepted Odaenathus‟ military authority in the East, and even rewarded

him with extraordinary Roman honors to encourage continuing allegiance and further support.

130

IGRR 3, 1031 (Palmyra). Potter (1990), 389-390, argues for merely honorific ornamenta consularia. Hartmann

(2001), 104-105, argues for a position as consul suffectus in absentia. Cf. Hartmann (2001), 104, note 167, with

further references. 131

The term hypatikos was used for the governor of the province of Syria since the second century. A Tyrian text has

been taken to show that Odaenathus‟ title lamprotatos hypatikos indicates that he was governor of Syria Phoenice,

probably in 258. According to Potter (1990), 389-390, ton lamprotat(on) can easily be interpreted to mean no more

than ho lamprotatos sunkletikos („the clarissimus senator‟). He adds that a parallel with Abgar IX offers the

possibility that Odaenathus was given the ornamenta consularia. Millar (1993), 165, implies that Odaenathus might

have held the governorship, possibly enhanced by separate consular honors. Hartmann (2001), 105-108, considers

serious the possibility that Odaenathus was governor of Syria Phoenice. 132

On the lines of march of Ballista and Odaenathus, see Kettenhofen (1982), 106-113. Cf. Goltz-Hartmann (2008),

259, with further references. Hartmann (2001), 106, uses Odaenathus‟ command over Roman legions in 260 to

support his assertion of Odaenathus‟ governorship of Syria Phoenice and consequent membership in Roman

administration at that time. 133

On Quietus‟ death, see HA, Vita Gall. 3, 1-5; Trig. Tyr. 15, 4; 18, 1; Zonaras 12, 24; Continuator Dionis, Petrus

Patricius, Excerpta de Sententiis, ed. Boissevain, p. 266, 167. 134

HA, Vita Tyr. Trig. 14, 1; 18, 1-3; Zonaras 12, 24. 135

Syncellus 716 (Mosshammer (1984), p. 466-467, dates the appointment after Odaenathus‟ initial success against

the Persians; Zonaras 12, 24, after he had suppressed Quietus and Ballista. On the suggestion that Odaenathus was

dux Romanorum and then corrector totius Orientis, see Hartmann (2008c), 351-352, basing this position on the titles

used by Vaballathus, Odaenathus‟ son. Potter (1990), 391-392, however, argues that Vaballathus must have had a

different title than Odaenathus. He suggests that this title should be translated restitutor rather than corrector.

197

As said above, Egypt accepted the rule of the Macriani. Coins struck by Macrianus and

Quietus in Alexandria show that the praefectus Aegypti Mussius Aemilianus, whose career is

discussed in Chapter 3 (section 3.1), had supported the rival emperors. After the Macriani were

overthrown, Mussius Aemilianus was proclaimed emperor himself and stopped the grain supply

to Rome late 261. He probably had no other choice than to rebel himself after he had backed the

wrong party.136

The fleet and troops sent by Gallienus under the command of dux Aurelius

Theodotus soon overthrew Mussius Aemilianus. Theodotus captured Aemilianus and sent him to

Gallienus.137

Another rebel arose in the East after Aemilianus‟ defeat: Memor, who was of

Moorish origin, was in charge of the corn supply in Egypt. Allegedly, Theodotus and his men

killed Memor before he was proclaimed imperator.138

Subsequently, Theodotus was appointed

praefectus Aegypti by Gallienus, circa July/September 262.139

Supposedly, the provinces of Achaea and Macedonia also became involved somehow in

the struggle between Gallienus and the Macriani. According to the Historia Augusta, the

Macriani, preparing their expedition to the Balkans, ordered a consular senator named Piso (with

the nickname „Frugi‟) to depose Valens from his commission. Although Valens is attested as

proconsul of Achaea, it is more likely that he (also) had a military command in Macedonia right

then, as Gallienus must have taken measures to defend the Balkans against the advancing troops

of the Macriani. That Valens is referred to as vir militaris in the Historia Augusta supports this

hypothesis.140

Not much later, the soldiers proclaimed both Valens and Piso as (rival) emperors.

Valens‟ troops soon killed Piso, and Valens did not survive his own soldiers much longer.

136

On Mussius Aemilianus signo Aegippius, see PIR² M 757; PLRE I, Aemilianus 6. On his revolt, see HA, Vita

Gall. 4, 1-2; Trig. Tyr. 22; Epitome de Caesaribus 32, 4. See Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 266-267, with further

references. 137

On Aemilianus‟ death, see HA, Vita Gall. 4, 2; Trig. Tyr. 22, 8. On Theodotus, see PIR² A 1617; PLRE I,

Theodotus 4. On Theodotus as dux, see HA, Vita Gall. 4, 2; Trig. Tyr. 22, 8-10; 26, 4. See Goltz-Hartmann (2008),

268, with further references in note 218. 138

On Memor, see PIR² M 490; PLRE I, Memor. On his usurpation, see Zosimus 1, 38, 1; Continuator Dionis, Petrus

Patricius, Excerpta de Sententiis, ed. Boissevain, p. 264, 160. See also Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 268-269, with further

references. 139

Theodotus is attested as praefectus Aegypti from July/September 262, on P. Strassb. 1, 5; cf. P. Oxy.17, 2107; 12,

1467. On Theodotus as prefect of Egypt, see Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1085, Aeg. 14, with further

references. 140

On Piso and Valens, see HA, Vita Gall. 2, 1-4; Tyr. Trig. 19; 21; Ammianus Marcellinus 21, 16, 10; Epitome de

Caesaribus 32, 4. Valens as vir militaris, see HA, Tyr. Trig. 19, 1. Allegedly Piso stem from the noble gens

Calpurnia, a consular family which traced back its origins to the late Republic. Many scholars consider Piso as

fictitious. Cf. PIR² P 428; PLRE I, Piso 1, with further references.

198

Gallienus’ protectores

Table 8: Gallienus’ protectores

Name

Aelius Aelianus (260/267)

Aurelius Victor (before 263?)

Petronius Taurus Volusianus (ca 258)

Traianus Mucianus (after 267)

Valerius Marcellinus (267)

Several military officers under Gallienus received the title protector. The earliest attested

example is Petronius Taurus Volusianus, whose career is rendered almost completely in an

inscription from Etruria.141

As discussed in Chapter 3, Gallienus had promoted Volusianus from

praefectus vigilum to praetorian prefect shortly after Valerianus‟ capture. Volusianus and the

emperor were the consules ordinarii in 261 and it is likely that the prefect was in Rome, when

Gallienus celebrated his Decennalia with a festival in the capital in 262. By then, the Etruscan

Volusianus had gone through a pronounced military career, much of which was spent in Rome.142

After serving with the V decuriae in the capital, Volusianus became centurio deputatus. In that

capacity, he commanded troops detached from the provincial armies for special imperial service

while the emperor was present in the capital.143

Next, Volusianus was promoted to the position of

primuspilus in Germania Inferior.144

He must somehow have caught Valerianus‟ or Gallienus‟

attention, as they appointed him praepositus equitum singulariorum, commander of the cavalry

contingent which acted as imperial bodyguard.145

He then served directly under Gallienus in the

West for some years in the Danubian area, perhaps as commander in the imperial field army.146

Next, he was transferred to Rome where he became tribunus of a cohort of the Vigiles, a cohors

urbana and a praetorian cohort, respectively. It was probably during his office as tribunus

141

CIL 11, 1836 = ILS 1332 (Arretrium, Italy). On Volusianus‟ career, see furthermore PIR² P 313; PLRE I,

Volusianus 6; Dobson (1978), 306-308, no. 215. See Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 279, note 254, for further references. 142

We must note that Volusianus‟ patronage of Arretium does not necessarily mean that he was born there. It does,

however, indicate a strong connection to the region of Etruria. It is noteworthy that the Licinii, the gens from which

Gallienus descended, were also of Etruscan origin. Dobson (1978), 306, mentions the lack of evidence to support the

hypothesis that Volusianus was related to Valerianus and Gallienus. 143

Though there is little evidence on the centurio deputatus, CIL 6.1110 (Roma) links this centurion to the centurions

of the Castra Peregrina. See Dobson (1978), 306. The legion of which Volusianus was centurion is not mentioned. 144

Dobson (1978), 308. According to Dobson, this position was carried under Philippus Arabs, circa 245. 145

A former tribunus of the Vigiles usually commanded the equites singulares. According to Dobson (1978), 307,

Volusianus must have been entrusted with this task temporarily. Dobson adds that whether the appointment was a

sign of imperial favor or of a declining significance of these troops cannot be determined, since the circumstances

surrounding the appointment are unknown and since there are no parallels for such an appointment. 146

Volusianus was commander, tribunus or praepositus, of detachments of the legions X et XIIII Geminarum and the

Dacian legion in the Danubian area in the late 240s or 250s. See Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, 901-905, no. 347;

Devijver (1976-1990), vol. 2, 639-640, P 30; Dobson (1978), 307.

199

cohortis praetoriae, that Volusianus received the title protector. It is possible that by the time he

held this post, a part of the praetorian guard was transferred to the Balkans to fight along with

Gallienus. Volusianus‟ last position as military tribunus was thus not necessarily carried out in

Rome.147

Then, he became praefectus vigilum, at a point usually dated circa 258/259, and thus

praetorian prefect in 260. Volusianus‟ rise to the top of the equestrian career had been

extraordinarily rapid.148

Whether Volusianus accompanied the emperor during the campaigns in

the first years of his sole reign is unclear. As said above, he may have stayed in Rome to settle

matters there and to deal with potential disturbances in the emperor‟s absence. It is likely that he

continued to be a praetorian prefect until Gallienus left Italy to fight the Goths and Heruli late in

the year 266. Then Volusianus became city prefect.

Besides Volusianus, several other protectores are known to us. An inscription from

Aquincum (Pannonia Inferior) from 267 refers to a man named (Clementius) Valerius

Marcellinus as praefectus legionis II Adiutricis, protector (Augusti nostri) and agens vice legati.

Since another man is attested as agens vice praesidis of Pannonia Inferior in those days,

Marcellinus was probably acting as vice legati legionis.149

Marcellinus apparently survived

Gallienus‟ death. Under Probus, from 277 to 280, he is attested as governor (praeses) of

Mauretania Tingitana.150

Marcellinus‟ appointment in Pannonia Inferior parallels that of a certain Publius Aelius

Aelianus. Aelius Aelianus was born in Pannonia Inferior as the son of the former custos armorum

of legion II Adiutrix and brought up in an army camp near Aquincum. Under Gallienus, he

became praefectus legionis II Adiutricis, protector, and agens vice legati in Pannonia Inferior

147

PLRE I, Volusianus 6, follows Pflaum, (1960-1961), vol. 2, 901-905, no. 347, in dating the tribunates between

255 and 257. Dobson (1978), 308, however, suggests that Volusianus held these commands between 251 and 253,

although he admits that these offices may also have been held between 253 and 261. Goltz-Johne (2008), 279, note

255, claim that Volusianus received the title protector circa 258. Speidel (2008), 687, note 90, assumes that

Volusianus became protector in 260, under Gallienus and Saloninus. 148

Cf. PLRE I, p. 981; Dobson (1978), 307, adds that Volusianus was not primipilus iterum and that he never served

as procurator at all. According to Dobson, a rapid rise through equestrian posts was not unusual, if an emperor

wanted someone in his entourage to stay put. 149

CIL 3.3424 = ILS 545 (Aquincum, Pannonia Inferior). ‘… Clementius Silvius v(ir) e(gregius) a(gens) v(ice)

p(raesidis) et Val(erius) Marcellinus praef(ectus) leg(ionis), prot(ector) Aug(usti) n(ostri), a(gens) v(ice) l(egati)…’.

On Valerius Marcellinus, see PIR² C 1143; PLRE I, Marcellinus 23; Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1142, with

further references. According to PLRE, I, Marcellinus was replaced by Aurelius Frontinus before June 268. 150

See also, AE 1920, 44 = ILAfr 609; AE 1921, 23 = ILAfr 610; AE 1916, 92 = ILAfr 621; CIL 8.21846 (Mauretania

Tingitana). De Blois (1976), 46, seems to be mistaken in calling Marcellinus governor of Mauretania Caesariensis.

200

between 260 and 267.151

He may thus have been Marcellinus‟ immediate predecessor. This man

is probably identical with the Aelius Aelianus mentioned as praeses of Mauretania Caesariensis

in another inscription and may also be identical with the homonymous procurator of Epirus.152

A man named Marcus Aurelius Victor was procurator and praeses of Mauretania

Caesariensis and protector. According to Christol, he was born in Mauretania and returned to the

area shortly before the beginning of 263 as procurator, after reaching the rank of primipilaris. As

primipilus and protector, he accompanied the emperor Gallienus during his military service.153

This Aurelius Victor has been linked to the Aurelius Victor mentioned in the inscription of the

arch of Gallienus in Rome.154

Another protector was Traianus Mucianus, whose career is known from an incomplete

and heavily damaged inscription from Thracia.155

Mucianus presumably started his career as a

soldier in a mobile field army of Gallienus, accompanying the emperor during his campaign

against the Goths in 267, after which he became cavalryman in the praetorian guard. The rest of

his career suggests that he probably ended up in the corps of evocati.156

Mucianus continued his

career as centurion, first in legion XIII Gemina, subsequently in cohorts of the Vigiles, an urban

cohort, and finally a praetorian cohort. In all cases, the title protector was added.157

Next, he was

princeps protector/protectorum, but it is unclear in which corps.158

The last post which is legible

151

AE 1965, 9 (Pannonia Inferior); CIL 3.3529 (Pannonia Inferior). On Aelius Aelianus, see also PIR² A 129; PLRE

I, Aelianus 10 cf. Aelianus 7 and 8; Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2, 948-952, no. 357; Nagy (1965); Goltz-Hartmann

(2008), 281, note 260, and Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1140, with further references. 152

Aelius Aelianus as praeses of Mauretania Caesariensis: CIL 8, 21486 = ILS 4495 (Mauretania Caesariensis).

Aelianus probably governed Mauretania before 277, when Valerius Marcellinus became Mauretania Caesariensis‟

governor. It is noteworthy that the careers of these men are so comparable, as Dobson (1978), 312, has pointed out.

Dobson suggests that Aelianus may have been primipilaris, although no source confirms this. Aelius Aelianus as

procurator of Epirus: AE 1907, 70 = AE 1915, 74 = ILS 9478. The identification of the praefectus legionis with the

man mentioned in this inscription was suggested in PIR² A 319, but was not accepted by Pflaum (1960-1961), vol. 2,

948-952, no. 357. De Blois (1976), 46, points out that there was another Aelius Aelianus from Photike, who was later

v.e. ducenarius ex protectoribus. 153

AE 1920, 108; AE 1956, 128 (Mauretania Caesariensis). On Aurelius Victor, see PIR² A 1634; PLRE I, Victor 11;

Thomasson (1996), 220-221., no 47; Christol-Salama (2001). 154

CIL 6.1106 = ILS 548 (Rome). Cf. De Blois (1976), 54; PLRE I, Victor 11. 155

IGBR 3.2.1570 = AE 1977, 768 (Thracia); on this man‟s career, see also Christol (1977); Dobson (1978), 313-316,

no. 223; Dobson and Breeze (1993). 156

The evocati were the most competent soldiers of the garrison of Rome who could, after their military service,

continue their careers in imperial service in several important positions. In some cases, they could even start a new

career as centurion, followed by posts as primipilus, like this Mucianus. See Dobson and Breeze (1993). 157

Christol (1977), 401, note 32 (with further references), mentions a suggestion by Pflaum that Mucianus never

actually was centurio vigilum or centurio (cohortis) urbanae, since the inscription does not specifies the cohorts.

Christol adds that G. Alföldy describes this as „eine sehr römische Praxis‟, especially in times of war. 158

Domaszweski supplements protectorum. Babut, on the other hand, suggests princeps protector. See Dobson

(1978), 314, for references. Cf. Christol (1977), 402-403.

201

in the inscription is primuspilus (or perhaps primipilaris). The legion concerned is not mentioned,

nor is the additional title of protector.159

Gallienus‟ praetorian prefect Heraclianus, seems to have

been Mucianus‟ patronus.160

Perhaps Mucianus was appointed centurio due to Heraclianus‟

involvement, as Christol suggests.161

Based on Mucianus‟ career, Christol hypothesized that the honorary title protector was

assigned to equestrian military cadre officers (centuriones, primipili, tribuni and praefecti)

belonged to the staff of Gallienus‟ mobile army and who found themselves in the emperor‟s

entourage. Christol furthermore suggests that the title protector was comparable with the title of

comes, but that it was used as an alternative term honoring men of lower social standing.162

The end of Gallienus’ sole reign: Goths, Heruli and assassination (267/268)

Table 9: men involved in military events at the end of Gallienus’ reign (267/268)

Name Position

Aureolus Dux equitum or dux vexillationum in Raetia/in

Germanos?

Ceronius/Cecropius Dux (equitum) Dalmatarum

Claudius (II Gothicus) Dux equitum (or tribunus in Ticinum?)

Domitius Aurelianus Dux equitum

Heraclianus Dux against Vaballathus/Zenobia?? 267?

Praefectus praetorio 267/268

Herennius Dexippus General (dux?) against Goths and Heruli in

Athens 267/268

Marcianus Dux against Goths 267/268

After a few relatively peaceful years in which Odaenathus defended the East and Gallienus could

focus on the enemies on the northern and western borders and the Gallic empire, the year 267

brought more trouble. At the end of that year, Odaenathus and his elder son were assassinated.163

159

The end of Mucianus‟ career is inscrutable, because the text on the inscription is hardly legible and the Greek

terminology is confusing. A reconstruction of the last part of the inscription has yielded the suggestion that Mucianus

was praefectus or dux of (probably a vexillatio of) legio IV Flavia, and subsequently praepositus, probably of a field

army consisting of combined vexillationes of the legions VII Claudia and IV Flavia. See Dobson (1978), 315.

Dobson says that these last two posts are usually rendered as dux and praepositus in Latin, but he stresses that these

terms were used to describe several commands of various weight. Mucianus seems to have reached the rank of

ducenarius and seems to have become praefectus (of a legion in Mesopotamia?). He is called strategos. Since his

career after his position as primipilaris cannot be compared to any other cursus we know, it cannot be supplemented

with any certainty, as Dobson (1978), 316, stresses. The term strategos does not correspond with the honorary title of

dux ( ) that he gets in the first line of the inscription. 160

In 267, Mucianus erected an inscription (AE 1948, 55 = IGBR 3.2.1569) dedicated to praefectus praetorio

Aurelius Heraclianus. 161

Christol (1977), 399-401. 162

Christol (1977), 402-406. 163

HA, Vita Gall. 13, 1 blames a kinsman; HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 15, 5-6, 17, 1-3 says a kinsman plotted with Zenobia;

Zosimus 1, 39, 2; Syncellus 716-17 (Mosshammer (1984), p. 466-467); and Zonaras 12, 24, simply refer to a plot,

202

Odaenathus was succeeded by his son Vaballathus, who was assisted by his mother Zenobia.

Although some late sources implicate Roman involvement, it is hard to see how Gallienus would

have profited from Odaenathus‟ death, and Roman relations with Odaenathus‟ successors did not

change drastically, which renders the suggestion unlikely. Late sources state that Odaenathus

assumed imperial power or that he received a general command over the East. Palmyra, however,

remained a Roman colonia and there is no real evidence for secessio in the 260s.164

Vaballathus

and Zenobia, however, changed their political course and became a threat to Roman authority.165

According to the Historia Augusta, Gallienus sent Aurelius Heraclianus, who would later

become praetorian prefect, as dux to settle the situation in the East after Odaenathus‟ death.166

Heraclianus likely had a successful military career before this promotion, in which he took part in

Gallienus‟ wars against barbarian invaders and internal usurpers. Unfortunately, there is no

evidence on his early career. Heraclianus was supposed to replace Odaenathus and to take

command of the military operations against the Persians. Apparently, however, defeated and his

army destroyed by the Palmyrenes under Zenobia, Heraclianus then returned to the West without

having achieved his aim. At his return in 267, Heraclianus probably succeeded Volusianus as

praefectus praetorio.167

No other ancient source refers to this expedition of Heraclianus, and

considering the reliability of the Historia Augusta, it should be taken into account that it never

took place, or at least not during the reign of Gallienus.168

In 267/268, Goths and Heruli („Skythai‟) invaded the Balkans and seized parts of Moesia

and Greece. They devastated large areas in both Thessaly and Greece, including the capture and

plunder of most of Athens. As they also threatened the Italic peninsula, the precarious situation

asked for Gallienus‟ immediate attention. Even before the emperor and his armies reached

possibly familial. Roman involvement is hinted at by Continuator Dionis, Joh. Antioch., fr. 152, 2, Excerpta de

Insidiis 110. On Odaenathus‟ death, see Hartmann (2008c), 356-357, with further references at note 37. 164

Cf. Hekster (2008), 24, who admits that near-contemporary inscriptions call Odaenathus „restorer of the whole

east‟ or even „king of kings‟, but adds that the evidence is posthumous. „It seems that, though he was de facto ruler of

the East, Odaenathus stressed his allegiance to Rome. Gallienus may have held little actual control in Palmyra and its

wider surroundings, but Rome could still claim to be its emperor.‟ Cf. Millar (1993), 170-172. Hartmann (2008c),

357, however, assumes that Gallienus was behind the murder. 165

On events in the East just after Odaenathus‟ death, see Hartmann (2008c), 358-360, with further references. 166

On Heraclianus as dux, see HA, Vita Gall. 13, 4-5; 14, 1. On Heraclianus, see PLRE I, Heraclianus 6; Johne-

Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1073, with further references. 167

According to Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 284, Heraclianus was already praetorian prefect when he was sent against

Zenobia. They assume that Heraclianus‟ campaign in the East was prevented by Aureolus‟ desertion in 268. 168

Potter (2004), 266, concludes that the expedition to the East did not take place during the reign of Gallienus, as

Heraclianus must have been engaged in the Gothic war in 267, but he suggests that Heraclianus might have made an

expedition to the East to restore Roman authority in 270 under Claudius II Gothicus.

203

Greece, however, the Athenians themselves acted. The so-called Valerian Wall which surrounded

only a small area north of the Acropolis, was created as a last line of defense.169

Led by a general

named Herennius Dexippus, the Athenians held off the barbarians.170

Dexippus came from an

important Athenian family and reached the Athenian archonship, although we perhaps know him

best as a historian.171

Dexippus seems not to have held any Roman offices. Dexippus‟ family had

obviously decided to focus on its status within the Athenian society and thus on their position as

local potentes; they did not belong to the Roman senate.172

In the battle against the Goths and

Heruli, Dexippus excelled as general; he encouraged the Athenian men to fight bravely and to

hold on until the imperial fleet arrived. The emperor‟s fleet came and secured a victory.173

Gallienus commissioned a man named Marcianus for his campaign against the Goths. An

inscription from Thracia praises Marcianus for saving the city of Philippopolis, presumably from

a Gothic attack, and refers to Marcianus as .174

This information

corresponds to references in the Historia Augusta, according to which Gallienus mobilized

Marcianus as dux in his campaign against the Goths in 267/268.175

Marcianus‟ early career is not

recorded, but must have been mainly military.176

He apparently defeated the Goths in Achaea,

perhaps in 267, after which he defeated them again in Illyricum, allegedly aided by Claudius.

This future emperor‟s role in the war against the Goths, however, is dubious and probably aimed

at clearing Claudius from any involvement in the conspiracy against Gallienus.177

The Goths

invaded Asia Minor, but Aureolus prevented any further intervention against them. After

169

Millar (2004), 292-293. 170

On Dexippus‟ defeat of the Goths and Heruli, see HA, Gall. 13, 8; Syncellus 717 (Mosshammer (1984), p. 467).

On Dexippus, see also PIR² H 104; PLRE I, Dexippus 2; Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 287, note 275, with further

references. 171

On him and his work, see, Millar (1969) and Martin (2006). 172

Cf. Millar (2004), 282-283. 173

For an account of the battle, see Dexippus, Scythica F28 [F25], translated in Hekster (2008), 115-116. 174

AE 1965, 114. On Marcrianus, see PIR² M 204; PLRE I, Marcianus 2. Gerov (1965) suggests that the title dux

refers to an earlier stage in Marcianus‟ career – „perhaps service in Pisidia earlier in the reign of Gallienus‟.

According to PLRE I, Marcianus 2, Marcianus‟ rank was probably dux, and will be interpretation. 175

HA, Gall. 6, 1; cf. 13, 10; Zosimus 1, 40. 176

This claim is supported by Zosimus 1, 40, who calls Marcianus „a person of great experience in military affairs.‟ 177

HA, Claud. 6, 1; 18, 1. Claudius may have remained in the area somewhat longer than Gallienus, but he certainly

was in Italy at the beginning of autumn 268, when Gallienus was killed. On the other hand, the reference to

Claudius‟ intervention in this matter supports the assumption that he was a key figure in Illyricum in those days. On

Claudius helping Marcianus, see also Goltz-Hartmann (2008), 290, with further references.

204

Gallienus had left for Italy to put down the revolt of Aureolus, Marcianus was left in control of

the war against the Goths.178

As has been mentioned above, there is no record of Volusianus‟ participation in

Gallienus‟ campaign against the Goths and Heruli in 267/268. Volusianus was probably

promoted to city prefect in Rome when Gallienus left the capital at the end of 266.179

Heraclianus

took Volusianus‟ place as praetorian prefect, probably after some successful activities as dux, and

accompanied the emperor during the campaign in the Balkan area.

After Raetia had been recovered, Aureolus was stationed there with a mobile cavalry unit.

From there, he was able to guard the borders of the Gallic empire, the Danube frontiers of the

Empire against Germanic invaders, and the Alpine passes, so that Italy could not be invaded.180

In the spring of 268, however, Aureolus turned against Gallienus. He withdrew from Raetia and

went to Milan, more or less inviting Postumus to invade Italy.181

Nevertheless, Postumus made

no attempts in that direction. Perhaps the soldiers of the Rhine army were dissatisfied because of

this lack of action. At the beginning of 269, a usurper named Laelianus, who was probably

legatus legionis XXII Primigeniae or governor of Germania Superior, was proclaimed emperor in

Moguntiacum (modern Mainz), though he was murdered by his own troops soon thereafter.182

Postumus was also killed by his own soldiers in May/June 269.183

The Gallic empire still

continued to exist until the summer of 274.

When Postumus did not respond to his invitation and support, Aureolus declared himself

emperor at Milan. Two versions exist on Aureolus‟ exact function at the time he and Gallienus

became alienated. Zosimus, followed by Zonaras, claims that Aureolus occupied Milan as

178

The precise details on these invasions and the Roman response to it are almost impossible to reconstruct with any

certainty as the sources are very confusing. See Potter (2004), 263, and 641-642, note 4, for further references on this

matter. According to Gerove (1965), 344, Marcianus was governor of Moesia Inferior and Superior. Against this, see

Thomasson (1972-1990), vol. 1, 146, no. 146; 175, no. 165. Cf. Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1150; 1188, with

further references. Marcianus may have been identical to the praeses of Dalmatia in 277, mentioned in CIL 3.8707.

See Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), 1120. 179

Volusianus as city prefect in 267-268: Chronogr. a. 354; cf. Christol (1986), 130-131. 180

Cf. Goltz-Halfmann (2008), 274-275. 181

Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 17; Zosimus 1, 40, 1; Zonaras 12, 25. Aureolus issued coins from the

mint of Milan in the name of Postumus, probably to elicit the support of the Rhine legions in his struggle against

Galliens. Postumus, however, does not seem to have responded to this, probably refusing to become involved in the

venture. On this matter, see Alföldi (1967), 1-15; Drinkwater (1987), 31-33; Watson (1999), 41; Goltz-Hartmann

(2008), 288, with further references. 182

On Ulpius Cornelius Laelianus, see Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 8; Eutropius 9, 9, 1. Cf. HA, Vita

Tyr. Trig. 5 (calling him Lollianus); Epitome de Caesaribus 32, 4 (where he is called L. Aelianus) and Orosius 7, 22,

11 („Aemilianus‟). See also Kienast (1996), 244-245. 183

HA, Vita Trig. Tyr. 3, 7; Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 9; Eutropius 9, 9.

205

commander of the entire cavalry.184

Aurelius Victor, on the other hand, does not mention

Aureolus‟ position as commanding officer of the cavalry and reports that Aureolus revolted as

leader of the legions in Raetia („cum per Raetias legionibus praeesset’), as dux exercitus rather

than governor. According to Victor, Aureolus subsequently marched towards Italy, where

Gallienus defeated him and forced him to withdraw to Milan.185

In his article on the reform of the

cavalry by Gallienus, Simon finds Aurelius Victor‟s version more reliable, although he adds that

coins attest that Aureolus commanded at least a strong unit of cavalry. He suggests that Aureolus‟

official Latin title may have been dux omnium vexillationum, perhaps with the additional words

in Raetia or in Germanos.186

Aureolus must have been one of the Empire‟s most powerful men

during Gallienus‟ reign. Yet he seems to have been the first of Gallienus‟ generals who showed

open dissatisfaction with the latter‟s regime.

While Gallienus was besieging Aureolus in Milan, he gathered his best men to participate

in the battle against his former general. They, however, had other plans. According to several

sources, it was the praetorian prefect Heraclianus who instigated the conspiracy against

Gallienus.187

He probably drew Claudius into the plot. Aurelius Victor reports that, at that time,

Claudius was commanding the soldiers stationed at Ticinum, a city close to Milan, as tribunus.

Zonaras calls him cavalry commander.188

Another possible conspirator was Marcianus.189

A man

named Ceronius or Cecropius, commander of the Dalmatian cavalry (dux Dalmatarum), is

mentioned as Gallienus‟ actual killer.190

Two versions of the murder exist. According to the

184

Zos. 1, 40, 1; Zonaras 12, 25. 185

Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 17. Zonaras 12, 25, probably also knew this version of the story, since

he said that Aureolus revolted while acting as a commander in German territory ( ).

Perhaps Syncellus‟ remark (Syncellus 717, Mosshammer (1984), p. 467), that Aureolus was

also reflects this version. On this, see Simon (1980), 438-439. De Blois (1976), 30-31, asserts that Aureolus was dux

„per Raetias‟, based on the words of Aurelius Victor, and he says „the title could refer to instructions concerning the

threat of an attack by the Alemanni on Raetia.‟ He adds (30, note 34) that „in addition to the command of the cavalry

Aureolus may well have had command of all the troops on the borders between Gallienus‟ territory and that of

Postumus and the Alemanni, as well as of the legions on the Upper Danube.‟ 186

Simon (1980), 439-443. At p. 441, Simon adduces mention of Claudius, Aurelianus and Cecropius/Ceronius as

leaders of the cavalry as a further demonstration that there was no such thing as one, united cavalry led by one men

under Gallienus. Simon furthermore suggests (p. 443) that the Hellenophone authors were probably confused since

from the fourth century onward a vexillatio was usually a cavalry unit, whereas the term could refer to a special unit

of any kind of troops during the Principate. 187

On Heraclianus‟ role in the conspiracy: HA, Vita Gall. 14.; Zosimus 1, 40, 2-3. 188

Zosimus 1, 40, 2, posits Claudius‟ involvement. HA, Vita Gall. 14, 1-9; 15, 2, explicitly exculpates Claudius.

Claudius as tribunus: Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus, 33, 28; as cavalry commander: Zonaras 12, 26. 189

HA, Vita Gall. 14, 1, 7; however, Zosimus 1, 40, does not name Marcianus as one of the persons involved. 190

HA, Vita Gall. 14, 4-9. Zosimus 1, 40, 2-3, does not give his name, but describes him as commander of a

squadron of Dalmatian cavalry. According to Zonaras 12, 24, Heraclianus was the murderer of Gallienus. PLRE I,

Cecropius I, suggests that Cecropius/Ceronius may have been tribunus rather than dux, but this is not explained.

206

Historia Augusta and Zosimus, Gallienus was told at dinnertime that Aureolus was advancing.

He rushed outside to gather his men, but was killed by the commander of the cavalry. Aurelius

Victor and Zonaras report that Aureolus had arranged for a forged document in which Gallienus

appeared to be plotting against his generals to fall into the hands of Gallienus‟ senior staff. In this

version, Domitius Aurelianus leads the plot. Aurelianus, born during Caracalla‟s reign in

Illyricum, was of humble origins and had a military career which is largely unknown to us.191

During the reign of Gallienus, Aurelianus seems to have been cavalry commander (dux equitum).

Although it is generally assumed that Aurelianus joined the conspiracy against Gallienus, his

exact role cannot be determined.192

Aurelianus certainly supported the new emperor Claudius II

Gothicus, who eventually promoted him to supreme commander of the whole cavalry of the

Roman army and whom Aurelianus even succeeded in the end.193

The aftermath

After Gallienus had been killed, Marcus Aurelius Claudius succeeded him. Claudius dealt with

Aureolus, who surrendered and was killed.194

Marcianus allegedly pacified the rebelling troops

by bribing them.195

Nothing more is heard of Cecropius/Ceronius, but he probably was at least

relieved of his post by Claudius and perhaps even executed. Heraclianus committed suicide.196

The fate of Volusianus, Gallienus‟ loyal city prefect, is unknown, but he probably perished not

Another dux called Cecropius is mentioned in HA, Vita Prob. 22, 3, as one of the illustrious generals who was

trained by Probus, but he may have been fictitious. Cf. PLRE I, Cecropius 2. 191

He was born in 214/215 in either Dacia Ripensis or Sirmium. Aurelianus‟ father allegedly was a colonus (tenant)

of a senator named Aurelius, but this may have been invention. HA, Vita Aurel. 3, 1-2; Epitome de Caesaribus 35, 1;

Eutropius 9, 13, 1. See Kienast (1996), 234, for further references. The details of his early career as given in HA, Vita

Aureliani are probably fictitious. On this matter, see PLRE I, Aurelianus 6; Watson (1999), 1. 192

Zonaras 12, 24; Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 33, 21, claim that Aurelianus forged the plot. HA, Vita

Aurel. 16, 1; Eutropius 9, 11, 1; and Zosimus 1, 40, 1-3, however, do not mention Aurelianus in connection with the

conspiracy against Gallienus. On this matter, see Bleckmann (1992), 417; Paschoud (1996), 110. Cf. Goltz-

Hartmann (2008), 289-292, esp. 291, note 288, with further references. 193

Aurelianus as supreme commander of the cavalry: HA, Vita Aurel. 18, 1. According to Watson (1999), 42,

Aurelianus was immediately assigned Cecropius‟ former command over the Dalmatian cavalry, and in due course

promoted to the position of overall commander of the cavalry, vacated by Claudius himself. „It may be that

Aurelian‟s complicity in the plot to kill Gallienus was not as incriminating as that of the other two (i.e. Cecropius

and Heraclianus), or it may simply be that Claudius knew he could trust Aurelian. In either case, it suggests that

Claudius had need of Aurelian, whose popular standing with the army helped to smooth the transition of power.‟

Aurelianus‟ proclamation: HA, Vita Aurel. 37, 6; Zosimus 1, 47. 194

On Aureolus: Zosimus 1, 41. On Claudius proclamation, see also HA, Vita Gall. 15, 3; Claud. 4; Aurelius Victor,

Liber de Caesaribus 34, 1; Eutropius 9, 11, 1; Zosimus 1, 41; Zonaras 12, 26. 195

HA, Vita Gall. 15, 2. 196

Zonaras 12, 25. Heraclianus was probably discarded by Claudius, the new emperor. Or, if Potter‟s suggestion

(Potter, 2004, 266) that Heraclianus was sent on expedition in the east by Claudius and failed to restore Roman

authority there is correct, he might have committed suicide after this failure.

207

long after the emperor. Claudius ruled the Empire for about two years and was, after a short

intermezzo, succeeded by Aurelianus.

Concluding observations

This examination of the men involved in military crises under Gallienus has yielded the

following observations regarding power and status in the third-century Roman imperial

administrative hierarchies. By 260, imperial authority was highly unstable. Valerianus and

Gallienus‟ joint reign was afflicted by omnipresent incursions of hostile tribes, bringing about

discontent among the armies and their leaders. Valerianus‟ capture must have devastated what

was left of the confidence in imperial authority. It presumably was the immediate cause for a

number of revolts against Gallienus, which diminished the level of power he exercised. As the

emperor faced so many military problems at once in various parts of the Empire, he was highly

dependent on his high-ranking military officers to assist him in solving these crises.

Senators‟ roles in military events seem to have been marginal by the 260s. Although it

remains possible that men like Ingenuus, Regalianus and Postumus were senators, the scarcity of

information on their social standing is significant. If they were senators, their revolts may have

contributed to, or accelerated, the exclusion of senators from military commands. Yet senators‟

presence at the top of the military hierarchy had obviously started well before in the 240s. Piso

and Valens are clearly labeled as senatorial men, but their offices were too unclear and their very

existence is doubtful, as no epigraphic attestation confirms the literary sources, so that basing

conclusions merely on their cases is thus risky. Only Odaenathus certainly was granted senatorial

status. For him senatorial status may have been indispensable, as he combined both military and

civil powers in the East, and hence required authority over not only military officers, but also

local elites and vassal kings, who may have attached much value to senatorial rank. Equites,

however, seem to have exercised more influence in military crises during Gallienus‟ sole reign,

men who had gained relevant military experience and connections with the military middle cadre

officers, and who had large numbers of troops and/or supplies at their disposal, many of whom

allegedly originated from the Illyrian area.

By the 260s, the military system had become much more flexible. The frontier zones were

guarded by long-standing, organized field armies, drawn from the legions and put under the

command of generals (duces). Although for most of these men all we have is non-contemporary,

208

literary evidence, which is often confusing and rarely specifies their exact position, the evidence

indicates, first, that each of them commanded a number of detachments assembled from

rearrangements of legions, and, second, that they received these commissions in areas that were

threatened continuously by barbarian invasions, like Illyricum and Gallia. In such areas, these

high-ranking officers either replaced the governors, or at least assumed the governors‟ military

responsibilities. Since structural military emergencies were inflicting the Empire in those days,

this system became more or less permanent. This system, however, depended greatly on

commanders‟ acceptance of imperial authority, as attempts by several of these duces to seize

imperial power proved. Yet, as their power was primarily based on regional connections and

support of the armies under their command, their claim for power often received acceptance only

at the local level.

To fight these usurpers and to solve other temporary local crises, Gallienus mobilized

field armies under the command of troubleshooting generals, such as Aureolus, who are often

called dux equitum, cavalry commander, in the literary sources. These generals certainly seem to

have commanded mobile detachments, since they show up in geographically disparate areas of

the Empire successively to solve crises. Yet it would be rather strange if they only had cavalry

units at their disposal. Although the importance of the cavalry had risen steadily from mid-second

century onward, infantry remained a relevant military instrument as well. It may be true,

however, that a large cavalry corps was the core of Gallienus‟ mobile field armies.197

We should

note that we are perhaps dealing with an anachronism here, since vexillatio, which originally

meant „detachment of one or several legions‟, came to mean „cavalry unit‟ in Late Antiquity.198

Hence, these troubleshooting generals may have been duces vexillationum, a title by which late

Roman and Byzantine authors eventually designated cavalry commanders. Gallienus‟ mobile

detachments probably foreshadowed the rise of comitatenses in the Late Roman Empire.

The increasing importance of the professional staff of high-ranking officers and subaltern

officers appears from the special corps of protectores, which developed in the mid-third century.

Commanders of army corps and vexillationes were appointed from this group. By giving

professional officers the title protector, Gallienus tightened the bonds between himself and these

197

Cf. Strobel (2007), 276, who regards the cavalry under Gallienus as an elite corps, based on the role cavalry

commanders and the equites Dalmatae played in Gallienus‟ murder. 198

According to Strobel (2007), 268, the term vexillatio was already used in AD 293 to denote cavalry units as

opposed to the infantry legion.

209

officers. The (equestrian) protectores may have largely replaced the (senatorial) comites as

military advisers. If the title protector was indeed most commonly used for officers in the

emperor‟s entourage, emperors may have granted this honorary title to their staff as a direct

appeal for loyalty.

Gallienus also depended on what we may refer to as local strongmen. On the one hand,

these were local men who took their own initiatives in defending an area which belonged to the

Roman Empire. Whereas Dexippus‟ action in Athens was a once-only occurrence, Odaenathus‟

assistance in the East became more structural. On the other hand, Gallienus tried to overcome his

problems in border areas by making treaties with local kings and leaders from outside the

Empire, allowing them to settle on Roman territory while outsourcing the defense of parts of the

frontier regions to them.

To conclude, senators‟ level of military power under Gallienus was low. They had lost

their position to equites, as by then they lacked military experience and did not have the

appropriate connections. Connections with other senators and members of the senatorial elite

were no longer relevant; relations with the equestrian military middle cadre were. While the

power of the equites as a whole grew, individuals‟ power remained restricted, as the emperor

divided military responsibilities among a large number of men, who each received a small

concentration of power over detachments of legions in the Empire‟s periphery. Even the duces of

the more flexible, mobile field armies remained unable to challenge the emperors‟ power for

long. When all of them assembled in Milan, they were able to link up and actually threaten

imperial power. Ironically, Gallienus‟ sole reign thus ended where it had begun, in Milan, where

men from the periphery who had assembled in the center of the Empire killed the emperor.

4.3. Conclusion

Now that we have both defined the military set under Severus and Gallienus and discussed how

each emperor dealt with them, it is time to make up a balance. How do these cases compare?

Which developments can be drawn and how can these be accounted for?

Acting or reacting: changing times, changing attitudes

First of all, we need to take into account that the reigns of Septimius Severus and Gallienus

differed fundamentally in the proportion of the reign that was taken up by military conflicts and,

consequently, in the role played by military officers during these reigns. Whereas Severus

210

confronted military conflicts only at the beginning and the end of his reign, Gallienus‟ rule was

continuously afflicted by military incidents. Gallienus‟ sole reign may have experienced relative

peace between 262 and 267, but no phase of absolute peace as Severus had experienced between

198 and 208. Consequently, Severus did not depend so completely on his military officers during

his entire reign. Also reducing Severus‟ dependence on his military officers were the temporally

successive and geographically confined nature of his military engagements, whereas Gallienus

dealt with simultaneous and geographically disconnected threats. Finally, perhaps the most

crucial difference was that most of Severus‟ external conflicts, the emperor had initiated himself:

although the expedition against the Parthian vassal kings and the campaign in Britannia were

responses to previous events in those areas, intervention was not inevitable in either, since the

frontier areas of the Empire had not, or at least not yet, been invaded. By the time Gallienus was

sole ruler, the emperor was no longer initiating military conflicts; he could only react to the

events which others initiated. That is why Gallienus had to depend on his military officers

throughout his entire sole reign, much more than Severus had. Both Gallienus‟ officers and the

inhabitants of the Empire must have realized this, and it is clear that their expectation that the

emperor would solve every situation decreased. So did their loyalty to imperial authority.

The social rank of the military officers

A second distinction between the situation at the end of the second century and the situation in

the 260s relates to the social rank of high-ranking military officers. The military officers under

Severus can be roughly divided into four groups. First are senatorial viri consulares, who

governed imperial provinces as legati Augusti pro praetore and in that capacity held the supreme

command over the legions stationed in their provinces. Governors of provinces with two or three

legions would have many troops at their disposal and, consequently, possessed considerable

military power. This situation could pose an immediate threat to imperial authority, as it provided

senators with the means (money and troops) to seize imperial power. The second group consisted

of generals, who were commissioned by the emperor as troubleshooters in times of military

crises. They were assigned to special army detachments drawn from the legions for a particular

military expedition. If successful, a general and his field army could be mobilized in other

campaigns as well. Many of Severus‟ generals were of senatorial rank, a mix of born senators and

homines novi. A third group consisted of senators who were deployed as advisers (comites) and

211

served in the imperial entourage during campaigns. Even if these senators had little or no military

experience, they could nonetheless contribute valuably to the campaign. Their wealth, status and

influence (particularly in Rome) and of course their connections with other senators helped

Severus strengthen his position, which the emperor obviously considered necessary at the

beginning of his career. To the fourth group belonged lower commanders, primarily of equestrian

status, subordinated to the senatorial generals (duces).

A prosopographical examination of the military officers in the 260s makes clear that the

role of senators in military affairs had by then heavily decreased. It is quite obvious that under

Gallienus, the old system, in which provincial governors had held ultimate military commands

unless a military crisis demanded drastic interference of a dux with a special task, could no longer

be preserved: structural military problems in several border areas required more permanent

solutions. Some areas, such as Illyricum, were almost continuously guarded by army detachments

led by generals, who should not be – but often are – confused with provincial governors.

Moreover, to fight usurpers and solve other temporary local crises Gallienus mobilized field

armies under the command of troubleshooting generals, who are often referred to as dux equitum.

Gallienus‟ generals seem mostly to have been men who had emerged from the military cadre,

with substantial military experience and connections and who had reached equestrian rank. The

role of senators as imperial advisers during campaigns seems to have become minimal as well.

Useful connections no longer compensated for senators‟ lack of military experience, so the

emperor no longer needed to take them along during expeditions. As they were no longer useful

and could perhaps even burden the army amid harsh campaigns, their place was probably largely

taken by equites who combined military expertise with useful connections within the armies and

familiarity with the war zones. Since most men attested as protectores belonged to this group, the

suggestion that protectores largely replaced the comites as military advisers is plausible.

Consequently, while military capability became ever more relevant because of the

increasing number of military threats, senatorial status was no longer a goal for military officers.

The practice of elevating successful equites to senatorial rank, to appoint them subsequently to

senatorial posts, was no longer common by the 260s. So by the sole reign of Gallienus equestrian

officers were no longer included in the senatorial class and senators were no longer officers. As a

consequence, senatorial support seems to have become less urgent for the emperor. Thus, in areas

dominated by warfare, military power and senatorial status drifted further and further apart.

212

Strategies to secure imperial power

Yet besides these circumstances and their uncontrollable consequences, both Severus and

Gallienus made strategic arrangements in an attempt to prevent the military from becoming too

great a threat to imperial power.

Severus created good relations with the soldiers by giving them donatives, increasing their

pay by half and by giving them other benefits, like allowing them to marry while in service. The

praetorians were dismissed and a new guard, twice as large, was created out of provincial

soldiers, mostly from the Danubian legions that had supported the emperor from the start. The

urban cohorts and the Vigiles in Rome were increased too, while three new legions were raised,

two of which were sent to the eastern border regions, the third being based in central Italy. All his

military reforms were expensive, but they must have increased the soldiers‟ loyalty towards the

Severan dynasty.199

Moreover, Severus used every chance to involve his entire family in the

army: Iulia Domna was granted the title mater castrorum, and Caracalla and Geta were actively

involved in the campaign in Britannia.200

Severus‟ reliance upon the military is best reflected in

the advice he is said to have given his sons in his famous last words: „Be harmonious, enrich the

soldiers, and scorn all other men.‟201

Severus‟ behavior toward high-ranking military officers, however, was equivocal.

Although he sought senatorial support at the beginning of his career, Severus does not seem to

have trusted his senatorial generals entirely, as he continually avoided appointing them to

positions of great military power. Especially those born into the senatorial order were only

sporadically sent to lead in military events and then transferred to positions of a more civil-

administrative nature. In that way, Severus made sure that those men whose status gave them

easy access to money and senatorial support were not given too many troops. Homines novi were

put into action more often, but after the civil and Parthian wars had ended, most of them

disappear from view, temporarily or permanently. None of them received high military

commands in times of war again, not even by Severus for campaign in Britannia.

199

On the donatives and soldiers‟ new priviliges, see Herodianus 2, 11, 1; 2, 14, 5; 3, 6, 8; 3, 8, 4-5; HA, Vita Sev. 5,

2; 7, 6-7; 12, 2; 16, 5-9. On the army‟s pay raises, see Develin (1971); Speidel (1992); Alston (1994), 114-115; 118.

On soldiers‟ right to marry, see Pfang (2001). On Severus‟ measures generally, see also Birley (1988), 102-103,

with further references. Severus‟ military successes were celebrated on his arch in the Forum Romanum. 200

On Iulia Domna as mater castrorum, see Birley (1988), 115-117, with further references. 201

Dio 77, 15, 2: „ .‟

213

By the time Gallienus became sole emperor, it was quite obvious that the men who could

undermine the emperor‟s position were no longer primarily senators. By then, senators were only

rarely appointed to offices which provided them with the military power necessary to prepare a

coup. Instead, from the late 230s onward, these posts went into the hands mostly of equestrian

men, many of whom came from the military middle cadre. These equestrian generals had at their

disposal the means that senatorial consular governors had had at the beginning of the third

century: troops and relevant connections. The case of Laetus demonstrates that Severus had also

considered generals who gained too much popularity among their troops as threats to his power.

Unlike Gallienus, however, Severus was able to dispose of this general when he reached a point

in his reign where he no longer depended on his military officers. Gallienus‟ reign never saw

such a peaceful period, and Gallienus‟ generals must have been aware of their powerful position.

The events in 260-262 demonstrate that by then even men of lower social standing could threaten

imperial authority. Gallienus took multiple measures in an attempt to prevent the military from

becoming too great a threat: he strengthened the ties between his officers and himself, he reduced

his officers‟ power and he enlarged his own control over military affairs. Furthermore, he

realized that he needed a more flexible military defense system to accomplish these goals, and to

cope concurrently with the problems afflicting various quarters of the Empire during his reign.

A considerable number of duces emerged under Gallienus. They commanded either long-

standing field armies in frontier zones or more flexible, mobile detachments. A large cavalry

corps seems to have formed the core of these army units.202

Nowadays it is debated whether

Gallienus actually composed an entirely new mobile field army consisting of (mainly)

cavalrymen, but it is clear that a more flexible system with a higher proportion of mobile army

units that was applied for specific purposes, had came into use by the 260s. These mobile army

units were necessary for actions in various areas of the Empire with the most suitable troops.

By dividing military responsibilities among a larger number of generals, each with a

particular task or region, who were all directly accountable to the emperor, the ruler could

supervise them more strictly than before. Further promoting his control was the emperor‟s more

active personal participation in military affairs, which had developed between the beginning of

202

Strobel (2007), 276, regards the cavalry under Gallienus as an elite corps, based on the role cavalry commanders

and the equites Dalmatiae played in the murder of Gallienus.

214

the century and mid-third century. Whereas Severus had restricted his role in his expeditions,

Gallienus dealt with many military crisis situations himself, as Valerianus had done in the East.

A special corps for the professional higher staff of officers and subaltern officers had

emerged mid-third century: the protectores. Commanders of army corps and vexillationes were

appointed out of this corps. By granting professional officers the title protector, Gallienus

tightened the bonds between himself and this officers further. If the title protector was indeed

most commonly used for officers in the emperor‟s entourage, it may be considered a direct appeal

for loyalty expressed by the emperor, addressed to his general staff.

Besides these measures, Gallienus also depended on what we may call local strongmen,

both Romans who took their own initiative and non-Roman local kings, who were allowed to

settle on Roman territory as long as they defended the border regions against other tribes. The

latter practice in itself was not new: previous emperors had made peace agreements with vassal

kings. Parthian kings, for instance, had backed Niger in his battle for the throne and incurred

punishment for this from Severus. Only the proliferation and extent of these treaties were new.

According to some scholars, these barbarians were even deployed as mobile elite forces.

With all these measures, Gallienus tried to overcome the numerous problems he faced,

and even though his reign was far from peaceful, he managed to reign for fifteen years. Hence, it

is reasonable to conclude that his measures, or at least some of them, succeeded, which also

appears from the fact that Diocletian adopted several of them in his reforms.

In conclusion, a comparison of the high-ranking military officers under Severus and Gallienus

not only illustrates the increasing chaos in the third century, which is reflected in the available

sources; it also reveals two main developments which were detected throughout the previous

chapters: (1) the rise of equites as leading men in military crises, and (2) a widening gulf between

military power and senatorial status in the military context. These developments are represented

in the careers of a number of individuals involved in military events between the reigns of

Severus and Gallienus, who have been discussed regularly throughout this study, for example

Macrinus, Oclatinius Adventus, Timesitheus, Maximinus Thrax and Priscus. Whether there

actually was an official edict or not, Gallienus seems to have confirmed a situation which had

gradually become the status quo: senators were excluded from military commands. These

measures probably did not come as a shock to the senators whose reluctance to pursue dangerous

215

duties in the army must have increased in those unsettled times. The division between civil and

military careers, which had started under Marcus Aurelius, had become entrenched under

Gallienus. It was only a fairly small step for Diocletian to institutionalize this division.

216

CONCLUSION

History-writing is made out of all kinds of components,

but information about individual persons remains among the most important.

A history without persons would not be history at all.1

This thesis has aimed to define changing power and status relations between the highest ranking

representatives of Roman imperial power at the central level, particularly in a period when the

central level came under tremendous pressure, AD 193-284. Prosopography has been used as the

principal method for analyzing the Empire‟s administration, appointment policies and socio-

political hierarchies. Hereby, it was possible to trace the political elite of the Empire, consisting

of the third-century emperors, the senatorial elite and high-ranking equestrians who served as

senior military officers in the army and as senior civil administrators. The examination of these

groups, via their status profiles and four power dimensions (in Dahl‟s terms, base, scope, domain

and amount), has shown how the various power and status structures changed in different ways.

By integrating prosopographical explorations into an analytical approach and asking sociological

questions, this thesis does not aim to analyze each individual senator or eques, but more broadly

surveys changes in power and status at the top level in the Roman Empire in the third century.

The focus on the third century has been valuable because the difficulties of the era at different

levels have revealed changes in power and status relations more visibly. The period under

discussion is one for which data are minimal. Yet, exactly such a sociological analysis of power

and status relations through prosopography has enabled me to describe and contextualize broader

processes.

Finally, this dissertation has aimed to demonstrate the advantages of a methodology based on

an analysis and comparison of prosopographical data covering a considerable part of the political

elite for a period of about a century. This method yielded not only confirmation of various

notions put forward in previous studies but, more importantly, new insights on the diachronic

development of imperial administration and social hierarchies, and other aspects which remained

obscure in previous studies of specific reigns, spheres of authority or geographic areas only.

1 Cameron (2003), xiii.

217

This conclusion synthesizes the material of the previous chapters in the broader context of the

functioning of third-century imperial administration at the central level. Throughout this study

three themes emerge: a shift of priority from center to periphery, a gradual disappearance of the

coincidence of status and power, and implicit changes in the administrative system. In the

following sections these themes are discussed in the context of their importance for this study.

A shift from center to periphery

Looking at developments of power and status relations in the third century as a whole, one can

argue that a shift of priority from center to periphery, which manifested itself at several levels

between AD 193 and 284, seriously disturbed existing power balances.

Emperorship was no longer reserved for men of the ordo senatorius with a network of

friends and clients in Rome and preferably some level of military experience: in the course of the

third century the imperial throne was mounted by several men who were equites at the time of

their acclamation. As the number of military threats and their intensity increased, from the 230s

onward, military preponderance became ever more important as a power base for emperors.

Concurrently, emperors‟ military duties became increasingly urgent and time-consuming. As

emperors were forced to focus on solving military crises in the periphery of the Empire, their

presence in the Empire‟s center decreased. Hereby, the composition of the imperial entourage

gradually changed: intellectuals and elite, both senators and equestrians, who were more or less

Rome-based and who had not gained considerable military experience, gave way to specialists in

military tactics, logistics, taxation and requisition. These high-ranking military specialists could

also promote the careers of the military cadre personnel that helped them in their work. In that

way, military men operating in border regions found the opportunity to intervene in central

imperial administration on a far more structural basis than before the 230s. Consequently, their

support became more urgent for the emperors than the support of the traditional aristocracy, and

they finally came to dominate imperial administration. Eventually, from the 260s onward,

emperorship fell into the hands of such military men, who were born in the periphery of the

Empire and had risen from soldier ranks to equestrian rank.

With the continuous elevation of equestrian high-ranking military officers to the imperial

throne, the distinction between emperors and their generals became minimized. Consequently,

military officers became ever more fearsome rivals to the emperors. A comparison of the

218

situation under Septimius Severus and Gallienus has clearly shown how the accumulation of

these developments seriously affected relations between emperors and their senior officers.

Moreover, communication between emperor and senate grew increasingly complicated, not only

because the emperors were present in Rome less frequently, but also because the status profile of

the „equestrian‟ emperors did not match the senatorial profile, and because these emperors were

not familiar with senatorial modes of communication. While dynastic stability was lost as an

additional power base, as the emperors after the Severi failed to establish long-lasting dynasties,

emperors‟ capacity to legitimatize their power became increasingly complicated. The fragility of

imperial authority is demonstrated by the high number of men who took the initiative to claim

imperial power for themselves, especially from the 240s onward.

The gradual disappearance of the coincidence of status and power

It is undeniable that in the period under scrutiny high social status no longer inevitably coincided

with the ability to exercise power in the Roman Empire. In areas dominated by warfare, military

power and senatorial status drifted further and further apart. As a result of the detachment of the

exercise of power from the center of the Empire, membership in the senate seems to have grown

less desirable to the new group of (military) power-holders who gradually became dominant.

Although this affected at least some senators‟ positions, it did not cause the complete

social transformation which is often suggested for the third century. In fact, this change of

mentality was obviously favorable to a number of families within the senatorial elite, collectively

constituting a senatorial nucleus. They did not have to relinquish their power and status in the

center of the Empire by acting in geographical regions not heavily struck by long-term problems

and with a traditionally high status, such as Italy, Africa and Asia. From the 240s onward,

appointments of members of the senatorial nucleus in provinces guarded by legions became very

rare. The scope of the senatorial elite‟s power was increasingly restricted to civil-administrative,

legal and financial offices. The level of power they exercised in the areas assigned to them,

however, should not be underestimated: that the emperors sojourned in Rome and other relatively

peaceful areas less frequently than before, enabled this group to strengthen its position and

exercise a considerable amount of influence there.

The senatorial nucleus constituted a small group which was strongly bound to Rome, Italy

and each other; families obviously strove for continuity of their standing by entering into

219

strategic alliances with other senatorial elite families. Possibilities to penetrate this senatorial core

group or even to become a member of the senatorial elite were restricted and do not seem to have

been eased by the increasing prospects for social mobility that emerged from the second century

onward. Prestigious senatorial top positions thus remained in the hands of (a nucleus of) the

senatorial elite, as ever before, and were not (permanently) transferred to equites. By continually

appointing such senators at these positions, emperors maintained the honor due to them without

giving them too much actual (military) power.

The power of the equestrian intellectuals – sophists and jurists – was primarily based on

their education and scholarly reputation which resulted from their high status at urban and

provincial levels. In the Severan era such intellectuals were still regularly appointed as imperial

secretaries, fulfilling civil-administrative, legal and financial duties; military matters only

occupied them if they were appointed to the praetorian prefecture. In this respect, their role

within imperial administration paralleled that of the senatorial elite. However, whereas the

senatorial elite may have profited from the emperor‟s increasing absence from the center of the

Empire, equestrian intellectuals‟ power depended greatly on the emperor‟s vicinity and his

concern with non-military matters. Consequently, from the 230s, when the emperors were forced

to focus increasing attention on military crises in border regions, active involvement of this group

of equestrians in imperial administration seems to have been drastically reduced.

From the reign of Septimius Severus onward, equestrians were ever more deployed as

provincial governors and military commanders. As many of these positions went to ranking

soldiers who had eventually acquired equestrian status, this group, which had only constituted a

minority within the ordo equester in the first and most of the second centuries AD, eventually

became dominant within the order in the course of the third century. The rise of these men was

more fundamental for the changes in the third-century socio-political hierarchies than the rise of

the intellectuals had been, as this time equites rose at the expense of senators.

The status of the praetorian prefect, the highest-ranking equestrian, eventually equaled his

high level of power, when praetorian prefects could be granted senatorial rank and titulature, and

could even enter the senate as consuls while remaining in office. Such an upgrade in status

occasionally occurred from the 260s onward. Consequently, such praetorian prefects may have

approached, but never equaled, the status of the senatorial elite whose members by then seem to

have dominated Italy as curatores and correctores. The military professionals who came to

220

dominate the ordo equester seem to have experienced a comparable elevation in status: over the

course of the third century the title vir perfectissimus became more prevalent. The occurrence of

equestrian emperors, status elevation within the equestrian order, examples of men who played

essential roles within imperial administration but were not elevated to senatorial rank, such as

Timesitheus and Priscus, or men for whom referring to their senatorial status does not seem to

have had priority, such as Licinius Rufinus, may indicate a certain depreciation of senatorial

status, at least in the military sphere. Yet it should be noted that the increase of status within the

equestrian order was not ubiquitous: individual equestrians saw their level of status rise, but not

all members of the ordo evidently rose in status. Likewise, as has become clear, senatorial status

did not entirely lose its significance either.

Implicit changes in the administrative system

Whereas the developments in imperial administration discussed so far were quite obvious, a

number of changes were incorporated in the administrative system more implicitly.

As emperors‟ military obligations became increasingly urgent and time-consuming, the

scope of their power narrowed: tasks which had formerly been reserved for emperors increasingly

fell into the hands of others. At best, the emperor himself delegated imperial tasks to men acting

vice Caesaris, such as senators who acted as judges in the emperor‟s place or praetorian prefects,

who seemingly were increasingly deployed acting vice Caesaris both in the military and the non-

military spheres, in areas where imperial presence was needed, but could not be realized. In some

cases, however, imperial tasks seem to have been assumed by others without the emperor‟s

involvement. A low point in this process was reached with the secession of the Gallic empire and

Palmyra, when the emperors were forced to give up parts of the Empire, which negatively

affected the domain of their power, as the number of people subject to their power decreased.

Furthermore, equestrian military professionals were ever more deployed as provincial

governors and military commanders at the expense of senators. This extension of equestrian

power, however, was often disguised as a provisional regulation as well: many equestrians were

appointed as agens vice, supposedly replacing senators temporarily. Only after some generations

had passed, agentes vice praesidis eventually became praesides. That these appointments were

initially presented as interim solutions may have allowed the upgrading of such equestrians‟

221

status to start much later than this custom of appointing equestrians to positions which were

previously reserved for senators.

Unsurprisingly, the tension in power and status relations eventually sparked the notorious conflict

of AD 238 between the senatorial elite and the rising members of the ordo equester, including the

emperor Maximinus Thrax. What is more astounding is that there is no report of confrontations

between senators and equites in the second half of the period under discussion. The clash in 238,

however, did not prevent the informal separation of military and civilian duties, which had started

under Septimius Severus and accelerated from the 230s onward. The process resulted in the

exclusion of senators from military commands under Gallienus and, ultimately, a formal division

under Diocletian. The conflict of 238 resulted in a compromise between the wishes of the soldiers

and those of the senate, when Gordianus III was proclaimed emperor with Timesitheus as his

„second‟ man. That he and other highly placed equestrians were not elevated to senatorial rank

may have been another result of the conflict. The same applies to the continuation of the trend of

shifting power balances implicitly by presenting adjustments as temporary solutions. Whether

those shifts in power and status were more subtle and therefore went unobserved, or whether the

lack of contemporary historiographic evidence after 238 has distorted our view in this matter,

remains unclear. Either way, the implicit character of these shifts probably contributed to the

insecurity and lack of clarity of third-century administration.

Diocletian‟s military and administrative reforms, then, were not as radical as has often

been argued. They seem to have consisted mainly in making explicit the allocation of power and

status that had remained implicit until his reign. Most changes in the socio-political hierarchies

from the fourth century onward represented a continuation of processes which either started or

accelerated in the third century. After some generations had passed, the changes in power and

status had apparently become more acceptable. Still, the fact that Constantine eventually chose to

incorporate high-ranking equestrians within the senatorial order reveals not only how much

power the former had by then. It also shows that even in the early fourth century senatorial status

had not lost its allure and that senatorial sensibilities could still not be ignored.

222

APPENDIX -1-

List of Emperors and Usurpers (AD 193-284)1

Pertinax 193

Didius Iulianus 193

Septimius Severus 193-211

Pescennius Niger 193-194

Clodius Albinus 193-197

Caracalla 211-217

Geta 211

Macrinus 217-218

Elagabalus 218-222

Seleuctus ?

Uranius ?

Gellius Maximus 219 (?)

…s Verus 219 (?)

Severus Alexander 222-235

L. Seius Sallustius 225(?)-227

Taurinus ?

Ovinius Camillus ?

Maximinus Thrax 235-238

Magnus 235

(Titus) Quartinus 235

Gordianus I 238

Gordianus II 238

Balbinus 238

Pupienus 238

Gordianus III 238-244

Sabinianus 240

Philippus Arabs 244-249

Pacatianus 248

Iotapianus 249

Silbannacus ?

Sponsianus ?

Decius 249-251

L. (?) Priscus 250

Iulius Valens Licinianus 250

Trebonianus Gallus 251-253

Uranius Antoninus 253

Aemilius Aemilianus 253

Valerianus 253-260

Gallienus 253-268

Ingenuus 260 (?)

Regalianus 260 (?)

Macrianus minor 260-261

1 This list is primarily based on Kienast (1996).

223

Quietus 260-261

Piso 261

Valens 261

Mussius Aemilianus 261-262

Memor 262 (?)

Aureolus 268

Claudius II Gothicus 268-270

Quintillus 270

Aurelianus 270-275

Domitianus II 271

Urbanus 271/272

Septimius 271/272

Firmus 273

Felicissimus 270/271 (?)

Tacitus 275-276

Florianus 276

Probus 276-282

Bonosus 280-281

Proculus 280-281

Carus 282-283

Carinus 283-285

Numerianus 283-284

M. Aurelius Iulianus 283

Sabinus Iulianus 284/285

Gallic empire 260-274

Postumus 260-269

Laelianus 269

Marius 269

Victorinus 269-271

Tetricus I 271-274

Tetricus II 273-274

Faustinus 273

Palmyrene empire 260?-272

(Septimius Odaenathus 260-267)

Vaballathus 267-272

Zenobia 267-272

Antiochus 272/273

224

APPENDIX -2-

Lists of men holding senatorial elite positions

between AD 193 and 284.1

CONSULES ORDINARII2

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

Q. Pompeius Socius Falco - C. Iulius Erucius Clarus Vibianus

Imp. Caesar L. Septimius Severus Pertinax Augustus II - D. Clodius Septimius Albinus Caesar II

P. Iulius Scapula Tertullus Priscus - Q. Tineius Clemens

C. Domitius Dexter II - L. Valerius Messalla Thrasea Priscus

T. Sextius Lateranus - (L./C.) Cuspius Rufinus

P. Martius Sergius Saturninus - L. Aurelius Gallus

P. Cornelius Annullinus II - M. Aufidius Fronto

Ti. Claudius Severus Proculus - C. Aufidius Victorinus

L. Annius Fabianus - M. Nonius Arrius Mucianus

Imp. Severus III – Imp. Caesar M. Aurelius Severus Antoninus Augustus

C. Fulvius Plautianus „II‟3 - P. Septimius Geta II

L. Fabius Cilo Septimius Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus II - M. Annius Flavius Libo

Imp. Antoninud II – P. Septimius Geta Caesar

M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus – Fulvius Aemilianus

(L.?) Annius Maximus – L. Septimius Aper

Imp. Antoninus III – Geta Caesar II

L. Aurellius Commodus Pompeianus - Q. (Hedius) Lollianus Plautius Avitus

M‟. Acilius Faustinus - A. Triarius Rufinus

(Hedius Lollianus) Terentius Gentianus – (Pomponius) Bassus

C. Iulius Asper II – C. Iulius Camilius Galerius Asper

Imp. Antoninus IV – D. Caelius (Calvinus) Balbinus II

L. Valerius Messal(l)a (Apollinaris?) - C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus

Q. Maecius Laetus „II‟ - M. Munatius Sulla Cerialis (Cerealis)

P. Catius Sabinus II - P. Cornelius Anullinus

T. Messius Extricatus „II‟ - C. Bruttius Praesens

1 Office-holders whose name is preserved in such a fragmentary state that identification is impossible are excluded,

as well as office-holders whose existence has been questioned. 2 Based on Leunissen (1989), 133-137 (with further references) for the period AD 193-235; on Johne-Hartmann-

Gerhardt (2008), vol. 2, 1063-1064 (with further references), for the period AD 235-284. 3 Consul „II‟ means that a person did not actually hold a consulate before, but that ornamenta consularia were

granted to him or that he had consular rank due to adlectio inter consulares.

225

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

Imp. Caesar M. Opellius Severus Macrinus Augustus - M. Oclatinius Adventus „II‟

Imp. Caesar M. Aurel(l)ius Antoninus Augustus II - Q. Tineius Sacerdos II

Imp. Antoninus III - P. Valerius Comazon „II‟

C. Vettius Gratus Sabinianus - M. Flavius Vitellius Seleucus

Imp. Antoninus IV – M. Aurel(l)ius Severus Alexander Caesar

L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus II - L. Roscius Aelianus Paculus Salvius Iulianus

App. Claudius Iulianus II- C. Bruttius Crispinus

Ti. Manilius Fuscus II - Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter

Imp. Severus Alexander II – C. Aufidius Marcellus II

M. Nummius Senecio Albinus - M. Laelius (Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus

Q. Aiacius Modestus Crescentianus II - M. (Pomponius) Maecius Probus

Imp. Severus Alexander III - Cassius Dio Cocceianus II

L. Virius Agricola - Sex. Catius Clementinus Priscillianus

Claudius Pompeianus - T. Flavius Sallustius Paelignianus

L. Virius Lupus (Iulianus?) - L. Marius Maximus

L. Valerius Maximus - Cn. Cornelius Paternus

M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus II - [---]ius [Su?]lla Urbanus

Cn. Claudius Severus - L. Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus

Imp. Caesar C. Iulius Verus Maximinus Augustus - M. Pupienus Africanus

L. Marius Perpetuus - L. Mummius Felix Cornelianus

(C.?) Fulvius Pius - Pontius Proculus Pontianus

Imp. Caesar M. Antonius Gordianus Augustus - M./M‟. Acilius Aviola

C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus II - (L.?) Ragonius Venustus

Imp. Gordianus II - (Clodius) Pompeianus

C. Vettius Gratus Atticus Sabinianus - C. Asinius Lepidus Praetextatus

L. Annius Arrianus - C. Cervonius Papus

Fulvius Aemilianus (II?) - Tib. Pollenius Armenius Peregrinus

Imp. Caesar M. Iulius Philippus Augustus - C. Maesius Titianus

C. Al[…] Albinus - C. Bruttius Praesens

Imp. Philippus II – Imp. Caesar M. Iulius Severus Philippus Augustus

Imp. Philippus III – Imp. Philippus II

Fulvius Aemilianus II - L. Naevius Aquilinus

Imp. Caesar C. Messius Quintus Traianus Decius Augustus II - Vettius Gratus

Imp. Decius III – Q. Herennius Etruscus Messius Decius Caesar

Imp. Caesar C. Vibius Trebonianus Gallus Augustus II – Imp. Caesar C. Vibius Volusianus Augustus

Imp. Volusianus II - (L.) Valerius (Cl. Poplicola Balbinus?) Maximus

Imp. Caes. P. Licinius Valerianus Aug. II – Imp. Caesar P. Licinius Valerianus Egnatius Gallienus Aug.

226

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

Imp. Valerianus III – Imp. Gallienus II

L. Valerius (Claudius Acilius Priscilianus?) Maximus II - M. (or M‟.) Acilius Glabrio

Imp. Valerianus IV – Imp. Gallienus III

M. Nummius Tuscus - Mummius Bassus

Aemilanus - (Pomponius?) Bassus

P. Cornelius Saecularis II - C. Iunius Donatus II

Imp. Gallienus IV - L. Petronius Taurus Volusianus

Imp. Gallienus V - Nummius Faus(t)ianus

Nummius Albinus II - Dexter/Maximus

Imp. Gallienus VI – Saturninus

(P. Licinius) Valerianus II - Lucillus

Imp. Gallienus VII - Sabinillus

(Ovinius?) Paternus - Arc(h)esilaus

(Aspasius?) Paternus II - (Egnatius?) Marinianus

Imp. Caesar M. Aurelius Valerius Claudius Augustus - Paternus

Flavius Antiochianus II - Virius Orfitus

Imp. Caesar L. Domitius Aurelianus Augustus - Pomponius Bassus II

(Postumius) Quietus - (Iunius) Veldumnianus

(M. Claudius?) Tacitus - (Iulius) Placidianus

Imp. Aurelianus II - Capitolinus

Imp. Aurelianus III - (Aurelius) Marcellinus

Imp. Caesar M. Claudius Tacitus Augustus II - Aemilianus

Imp. Caesar M. Aurelius Probus Augustus - (L. Iulius?) Paulinus

Imp. Probus II - Virius Lupus (II)

Imp. Probus III - Nonius Paternus

(Valerius?) Messal(l)a - (Vettius?) Gratus

Imp. Probus IV - C. Iunius Tiberianus

Imp. Probus V - Pomponius Victori(a)nus

Imp. Caesar M. Aurelius Carus Augustus II - Imp. Caesar M. Aurelius Carinus Augustus

Imp. Carinus II – Imp. Caesar M. Aurelius Numerius Numerianus Augustus

PRAEFECTI URBI4

193/200

T. Flavius Claudius Sulpicianus (193)

Cornelius Repentinus (193)

4 Based on Leunissen (1989), 308-311 (with further references) for the period AD 193-235; on Johne-Hartmann-

Gerhardt (2008), vol. 2, 1065-1068 (with further references), for the period AD 235-284. Men who were appointed

vice praefecti are not included.

227

200/210

210/220

220/230

230/240

240/250

250/260

260/270

270/280

(Vibius?) Bassus (193)

C. Domitius Dexter (193 – 196?)

P. Cornelius Anullinus (196-199/203?)

L. Fabius Cilo (202/203-211)

C. Iulius Asper (211/212)

M. Oclatinius Adventus (217)

L. Marius Maximus (218-219)

P. Valerius Comazon (218?-220)

(Domitius?) Leo (Procillianus?) (218/222; 220?)

P. Valerius Comazon II (221)

Fulvius (221?-222)

P. Valerius Comazon III (222/223)

Severus (223)

Appius Claudius Iulianus (224)

M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus (234/237)

Sabinus (238)

L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus (239/253)

Flavius Iulius Latronianus (ca 243)

D. Simonius Proculus Iulianus (244/250)

C. Messius Quintus Decius Valerianus (before 249) UNCERTAIN

A. Caecina (Tacitus?) (240/254)

Fl(avius) Lollianus (before 254)

L. Egnatius Victor Lollianus (254)

L. Valerius Maximus (255)

Nummius Albinus (256)

C. Iunius Donatus (257)

P. Cornelius Saecularis (258-260)

Nummius Albinus II (261-263)

(Aspasius?) Paternus (264-266)

L. Petronius Taurus Volusianus (267-268)

Flavius Antioc(h)ianus (269-270)

Pomponius Bassus …stus (270?)

T. Flavius Postumius Varus (271)

Flavius Antioc(h)ianus II (272)

Virius Orfitus (273-274)

Postumius Suagrus (275)

Ovinius Pacatianus (276-277)

228

280/284

Virius Lupus (278-280)

Ovinius Paternus (281)

Pomponius Victori(a)nus (282)

PROCONSULES AFRICAE5

193/200

200/210

210/220

220/230

230/240

240/250

250/260

Pollienus Auspex? (probably 185/200)

C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes (190/200)

M. Claudius Macrinius Vindex Hermogenianus (193/211)

Sex. Cocceius Vibianus (193/217)

Cingius Severus (before 197)

P. Cornelius Anullinus (193)

L. Cossonius Eggius Marullus (198/199)

M. Ulpius Arabianus (ca 200?)

C. Iulius Asper (200/210)

M. Umbrius Primus (ca 202?)

Q. Caecilius […] (202?)

Minicius Opimianus (202/203)

Rufinus (203/204)

M. Valerius Bradua Mauricus (202/208, ca 206?)

T. Flavius Decimus (209)

C. Valerius Pudens (209/212)

P. Iulius Scapula Tertullus Priscus (212/213)

Appius Claudius Iulianus (212/222)

L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus (213/214 or 216/217)

M. Aufidius Fronto (sortitus, 217)

C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus (213?/215, or -less likely- 218/222?)6

L. Marius Perpetuus (or procos Asiae?; ca 220)

L. Cassius Dio Cocceianus (ca 221)

C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus (ca 230)

M. Antonius Gordianus Sempronianus Romanus Africanus (237/238)

Sabinianus (240)

L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus (after 238; not before 240/1)

Aspasius Paternus (257/258)

5 Based on Thomasson (1996), 74-102 (with further references) and on Johne-Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008), vol. 2,

1090-1095 (with further references). Men who were appointed vice proconsulis are not included. 6 This date differs from the date mentioned by Thomasson (1996), 86-87, no. 118, who assumes that the

proconsulship was held under Elgabalus or Severus Alexander. See section 2.2 on the Caesonii and the dates of the

positions held by them.

229

260/270

270/280

280/284

Galerius Maximus (258/259)

L. Mes[sius…] (probably 259/60 or 260/1)

Vibius Passienus (260/268) UNCERTAIN

L. Naevius Aquilinus (260/268)

Sex. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Paulinus (probably ca 265/268)

Firmus (273) UNCERTAIN

L. Caesonius Ovinius Manlius Rufinianus Bassus (ca 275)

L. Iulius (?) Paulinus (283)

PROCONSULES ASIAE7

193/200

200/210

210/220

220/230

L. Albinus Saturninus (190/200)

Asellius Aemilianus (192/193)

(M. Gavius) Gallicanus (or proconsul Africae?, 195/200?)

Q. Licinius Nepos (198/208)

Q. Aurelius Polus Terentianus (198/208)

Q. Tineius Sacerdos (199/211)

Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus (201/202)

Tarius Titianus (202/205?)

L. Calpurnius Proculus (202/205?)

Popilius Pedo Apropianus (204/5 or 205/6)

Q. Caecilius Secundus Servilianus (208/209)

T. Manilius Fuscus (209/210?)

C. Gabinius Barbarus Pompeianus? (211/213)

Gavius Tranquillus (211/213)

M.? Iunius Consessus Aemilianus (213/214?)

L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus (213/215)

C. Iulius Avitus Alexianus (215/217)

C. Iulius Asper (designatus, 217)

Q. Anicius Faustus (217/218)

(M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio) Albinus (ca 221)

M. Aufidius Fronto (219/222)

C. Aufidius Marcellus (219/222)

Q. (Hedius) Lollianus Plautius Avitus (222/235; ca 224)

Q. Ai(acius Modestinus Crescentianus?) (222/235)

7 Based on Leunissen (1989), 222-228 (with further references) for the period AD 193-235; on Johne-Hartmann-

Gerhardt (2008), vol. 2, 1102-1104 (with further references), for the period AD 235-284. Men who were appointed

vice proconsulis are not included.

230

230/240

240/250

250/260

270/280

280/283

Q. (Virius/Vibius Egnatius) Sulpicius Priscus (222/235)

M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus (before 234)

Amicus (230/232)

Valerius Messala (236/238)

M. Triarius Rufinus Asin(ius) Sabinianus (238/240)

L. Egnatius Victor Lollianus (proconsul ter, 242-245)

C. Iulius Fl. Proculus Quintilianus (249/250)

C. Iulius Octavius Volusenna Rogatianus (ca 253/256)

Iul(ius) Proculus (276)

Asclepiodotus (praeses, 283)

231

APPENDIX -3-

List of Praefecti Praetorio between AD 193 and 284.1

Name Q. Aemilius Laetus (PIR² A 358)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 192-193 (Commodus; Pertinax)

Literature with further references Howe, 68, no. 13

Name T. Flavius Genialis (PIR² F 277)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 193 (Didius Iulianus)

Literature with further references Howe, 68, no. 14

Name Tullius Cripinus (PIR T 273)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 193 (Didius Iulianus)

Literature with further references Howe, 68, no. 15

Name Veturius Macrinus (PIR V 361)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 193 (Didius Iulianus; Septimius Severus?)

Literature with further references Howe, 68-69, no. 16

Name Flavius Iuvenalis (PIR² F 300)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 193(Didius Iulianus; Septimius Severus?)

Literature with further references Howe, 69, no. 17

Name C. Fulvius Plautianus (PIR² F 554)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 197-205 (Septimius Severus)

Literature with further references Howe, 69-70, no. 18; Chastagnol, 63, no. 1

Name Q. Aemilius Saturninus (PIR² A 403)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 199/200 (Septimius Severus)

Literature with further references Howe, 70, no. 19

Name Q. Maecius Laetus (PIR² M 54)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 205-211/215? (Septimius Severus; Caracalla?)

1 This list is based on Howe (1942), 65-95 (= Howe); Chastagnol (1970), 63-68 (= Chastagnol); and Johne-

Hartmann-Gerhardt (2008) (= Johne), 1071-1077. Those prefects who are not considered historical or whose

historicity is doubted by these scholars are excluded from this list, as are prefects whose name and identity are

unknown and prefects of doubtful date.

232

Literature with further references Howe, 71, no. 21; Chastagnol, 63, no. 2

Name Aemilius Papinianus (PIR² A 388)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 205-211 (Septimius Severus; Caracalla)

Literature with further references Howe, 71-72, no. 22; Chastagnol, 63, no. 3

Name Cn. Marcius Rustius Rufinus (PIR² M 246)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 210 or 212 (Septimius Severus or Caracalla)

Literature with further references Howe, 72, no. 24; Chastagnol, 63-64, no. 4

Name M. Opellius Macrinus (PIR² O 108)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 213/217 (Caracalla)

Literature with further references Howe, 72-73, no. 25; Chastagnol, 64, no. 5

Name M. Oclatinius Adventus (PIR² O 99)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 212/216?-218 (Caracalla)

Literature with further references Howe, 73, no. 26; Chastagnol, 64, no. 6

Name Ulpius Iulianus (PIR V 555)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 217?-218 (Macrinus)

Literature with further references Howe, 73, no. 27; Chastagnol, 64, no. 7

Name Iulianus Nestor (PIR² I 99)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 217?-218 (Macrinus)

Literature with further references Howe, 74, no. 28; Chastagnol, 64, no. 8

Name Iulius Basilianus (PIR² I 201)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 218 (Macrinus)

Literature with further references Howe, 74, no. 29; Chastagnol, 64, no. 9

Name P. Valerius Comazon (PIR V 42)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 218-? (Elagabalus)

Literature with further references Howe, 74, no. 30; Chastagnol, 64, no. 10

Name Iulius Flavianus (PIR² I 312)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 218 (Elagabalus)

Literature with further references Chastagnol, 64, no. 11

Name …atus

233

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 218/222, 221? (Elagabalus)

Literature with further references Howe, 75, no. 31; Chastagnol, 65, no. 12

Name Antiochianus (PIR² A 738)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 221-? (Elagabalus)

Literature with further references Howe, 75, no. 32; Chastagnol, 65, no. 13

Name Flavianus

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 222 (Severus Alexander)

Literature with further references Howe, 75, no. 34; Chastagnol, 65, no. 15

Name Geminius Chrestus (PIR² G 144)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 222 (Severus Alexander)

Literature with further references Howe, 75, no. 35; Chastagnol, 65, no. 16

Name Domitius Ulpianus (PIR² D 169)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 222-223 (Severus Alexander)

Literature with further references Howe, 75-76, no. 36; Chastagnol, 65, no. 17

Name M. Aedinius Iulianus (PIR² A 113)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 220/238, circa 223 (Severus Alexander or Gordianus III)

Literature with further references Howe, 76, no. 38; Chastagnol, 65, no. 19; Johne, 1074, PPO 22

Name L. Domitius Honoratus (PIR² D 151)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 223 (Severus Alexander)

Literature with further references Howe, 76, no. 37; Chastagnol, 65, no. 21

Name Vitalianus (PIR V 492)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 238 (Maximinus Thrax)

Literature with further references Howe, 77, no. 40; Chastagnol, 66, no. 26; Johne, 1071, PPO 1

Name (Anolinus/Anullinus?)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 238 (Maximinus Thrax)

Literature with further references Howe, 77, no. 41-42; Johne, 1071, PPO 2

Name Domitius (PIR² D 123)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 240 (Gordianus III)

Literature with further references Howe, 78, no. 44; Chastagnol, 66, no. 27; Johne, 1071, PPO 3

234

Name C. Furius Sabinus Aquila Timesitheus (PIR² F 581)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 241-243 (Gordianus III)

Literature with further references Howe, 78-79, no. 45; Chastagnol, 66, no. 28; Johne, 1071, PPO 4

Name C. Iulius Priscus (PIR² I 488)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 242/244 (Gordianus III); 247-249 (Philippus Arabs)

Literature with further references Howe, 79, no. 46; Chastagnol, 66, no. 20; 31; Johne, 1071-1072,

PPO 5

Name M. Iulius Philippus (PIR² I 461)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 243-244 (Gordianus III)

Literature with further references Howe, 79-80, no. 47; Chastagnol, 66, no. 30; Johne, 1072, PPO 6

Name M. Attius Cornelianus (PIR² A 1353)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 238/249 (Gordianus III or Philippus Arabs)

Literature with further references Howe, 76-77, no. 39 (dating his prefecture ca 230); Chastagnol, 66,

no. 32; Johne, 1072, PPO 7

Name Q. Herennius Potens (PIR² H 120)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 3rd

century, 249-251? (Decius?)

Literature with further references Howe, 86, no. 64; Chastagnol, 66, no. 33; Johne, 1072, PPO 8

Name Ae[l]ius Fir[mus?]

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) Circa 253/256 (Valerianus?)

Literature with further references Johne, 1072, PPO 10

Name Successianus (PIR² S 943)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 254/255-260? (Valerianus)

Literature with further references Howe, 80-81, no. 49; Chastagnol, 67, no. 35 (dating his prefecture

from 256/257); Johne, 1073, PPO 11-12

Name L. Petronius Taurus Volusianus (PIR² P 313; PLRE I,

Volusianus 6)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 260 - ? (Gallienus)

Literature with further references Howe, 82, no. 52; Chastagnol, 67, no. 37; Johne, 1073, PPO 13

Name Ballista (Callistus) (PIR² B 41; PLRE I, Ballista)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 260-261 (Valerianus?; Macrianus minor and Quietus)

235

Literature with further references Howe, 81-82, no. 51; Chastagnol, 67, no. 36; Johne, 1073, PPO 14

Name Aurelius Heraclianus (PLRE I, Heraclianus 6)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 267/268 (Gallienus)

Literature with further references Howe, 82, no. 53; Chastagnol, 67, no. 38; Johne, 1073, PPO 15

Name Iulius Placidianus (PIR² I 468; PLRE I, Placidianus 2)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 270-273? (Aurelianus)

Literature with further references Howe, 82, no. 54; Chastagnol, 67, no. 39; Johne, 1073, PPO 16

Name M. Annius Florianus (PIR² A 649; PLRE I, Florianus 6)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 275-276 (Tacitus)

Literature with further references Howe, 83, no. 55; Chastagnol, 67, no. 40; Johne, 1073, PPO 17

Name M. Aurelius Carus (PIR² A 1475; PLRE I, Carus)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 276-282 (Probus)

Literature with further references Howe, 83, no. 56; Chastagnol, 67, no. 41; Johne, 1074, PPO 18

Name (M. Aurelius) Sabinus Iulianus (PIR² A 1538; PLRE I, Iulianus

38, cf. Iulianus 24)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 283/284? (Carus and Numerianus)

Literature with further references Howe, 85, no. 62; Johne, 1074, PPO 19

Name (L. Flavius?) Aper (PIR² A 909; PLRE I, Aper 2, cf. Aper 3)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 284 (Carus?; Numerianus)

Literature with further references Howe, 83-84, no. 57; Chastagnol, 67, no. 42; Johne, 1074, PPO 20

Name T. Claudius Aurelius Aristobulus (PIR² C 806; PLRE I,

Aristobulus)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 284-285 (Carinus; Diocletianus)

Literature with further references Howe, 84, no. 58; Chastagnol, 67, no. 43; Johne, 1074, PPO 21.

INCERTI2

Name Valerius Patruinus (PIR V 103)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 212 (Caracalla)

Literature with further references Howe, 72, no. 23

2 Incerti are those whose identification specifically as praetorian prefects is not attested, but depends on conjecture

from surviving evidence.

236

Name T. Lorenius Celsus (PIR² L 343)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 223? (Severus Alexander?)

Literature with further references Chastagnol, 65, no. 18

Name L. Didius Marinus (PIR² D 71)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 223 (Severus Alexander)

Literature with further references Chastagnol, 65, no. 20

Name Silvanus or Albanus (PIR² S 737)

Date of Prefecture (Emperor served) 258-260 (Valerianus and Gallienus)

Literature with further references Howe, 81, no. 50; Johne, 1075, PPO 23a

237

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Absil, M., Les préfets du prétoire d’Auguste à Commode, 2 avant J.-C. 192 après J.-C. (Paris

1997/1998).

Alföldi, A., Studien zur Geschichte der Weltkrise des 3. Jahrhunderts nach Christus (Darmstadt

1967).

Alföldy, G., Die Legionslegaten der römischen Rheinarmeen. Epigraphische Studien 3; Beihefte

der Bonner Jahrbücher 22 (Köln-Graz 1967).

Alföldy, G., „Septimius Severus und der Senat‟, BJ 168 (1968) 112-160.

Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispasienses. Senatorische Reichsbeamte und Offiziere in den spanischen

Provinzen des römischen Reiches von Augustus bis Diokletian (Wiesbaden 1969).

Alföldy, G., „Der Heilige Cyprian und die Krise des römischen Reiches‟, Historia 22.3 (1973)

479-501.

Alföldy, G., „Consuls and Consulars under the Antonines: Prosopography and History‟, Ancient

Society 7 (1976) 263-299.

Alföldy, G., Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen: prosopographische

Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Führungsschicht. Antiquitas. Reihe 1, bd. 27 (Bonn

1977).

Alföldy, G., „Die Stellung der Ritter in der Führungsschicht des Imperium Romanum‟, Chiron 11

(1981) 169-215.

Alföldy, G., „Senatoren aus Norditalien. Regiones IX, X und XI‟, in: Epigrafia e Ordine

Senatorio II. Tituli 5 (Roma 1982) 309-368.

Alföldy, G., The Social History of Rome (translated by D. Braund and F. Pollock, rev. ed. London

1988).

Alföldy, G., „Herodian‟s Person‟, in: Idem (ed.), Die Krise des Römischen Reiches. Geschichte,

Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbetrachtung. Ausgewählte Beiträge (Stuttgart

1989a) 240-272.

Alföldy, G., „Bellum Desertorum‟, in: Die Krise des römischen Reiches. Geschichte,

Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbetrachtung (Stuttgart 1989b) 69-80.

Alston, R., „Roman military pay from Caesar to Diocletian‟, JRS 84 (1994) 113-123.

Alston, R., Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: a social history (London 1995).

238

Amarelli, F., Consilia principum (Napoli 1983).

Ando, C., Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley-Los

Angeles 2000).

Arnheim, M.T.W., The senatorial aristocracy in the later Roman Empire (Oxford 1972).

Badel, C., A. Bérenger, L’Empire romain au IIIe siècle après J.-C. (Paris 1998).

Bagnall, R.S., „P. Oxy. 4527 and the Antonine Plague in Egypt: death or flight?‟, JRA 13 (2000)

288-292.

Bakker, L., „Raetien unter Postumus - das Siegesdenkmal einer Juthungenschlacht im Jahre 260

n. Chr. aus Augsburg‟, Germania 71 (1993) 369-386.

Baldwin, B., „Festus the Historian‟, Historia 27 (1978) 197-217.

Baldwin, B., Suetonius. The biographer of the Caesars (Amsterdam 1983).

Barbieri, G., L’Albo Senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino (193-285) (Roma 1952).

Barnes, T.D., „Some Persons in the Historia Augusta‟, Phoenix 26. 2 (1972) 140-182.

Barnes, T.D., The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge 1982).

Barnes, T.D., „The Composition of Cassius Dio‟s Roman History‟, Phoenix 38 (1984) 240-255.

Barnes, T.D., „Proconsuls of Asia under Caracalla‟, Phoenix 40 (1986) 202-205.

Barnes, T.D., „Praetorian prefects, 337-361‟, ZPE 94 (1992) 249-260.

Barnes, T.D., „Emperors, Panegyrics, Prefects, Provinces and Palaces (284-317)‟, JRA 9 (1996)

532-552.

Bastianini, G., „Il prefetto d‟Egitto (30 a.C.-297 d.C.): Addenda‟, ANRW II, 10, 1 (1988) 503-

517.

Benario, H.W., „Review of A. Chastagnol, Recherches sur l’Histoire Auguste (Bonn 1970)‟,

AJPh 95.1 (1974) 91-92.

Benoist, S., „Le prince et la société romaine d‟ Empire au IIIe siècle: Le cas des ornamenta,‟

CCG 11 (2000) 309-329.

Bertrand-Dagenbach, C., Alexandre Sévère et l’”Histoire Auguste”. Collection Latomus 208

(Bruxelles 1990).

Bird, H.W., Sextus Aurelius Victor. A Historiographical Study (Liverpool 1984).

Bird, H.W., „Eutropius: his life and career‟, Echos du monde classique 32 (1988) 51-60.

Birley, E., „Senators in the Emperor‟s Service‟, PBA 39 (1953) 197-214.

239

Birley, A.R., „Review of A. Chastagnol, Recherches sur l’Histoire Auguste (Bonn 1970)‟, JRS 61

(1971) 309-310.

Birley, A.R., The Fasti of Roman Britain (Oxford 1981).

Birley, A.R., Marcus Aurelius: a biography (second edition, London 1987).

Birley, A.R., The African emperor: Septimius Severus (second edition, London 1988).

Birley, A.R., Locus virtutibus patefactus? (Opladen 1992).

Birley, A.R., Hadrian: the restless emperor (London 1997a).

Birley, A.R., „Marius Maximus: the consular biographer‟, ANRW II, 34, 3 (1997b), 2678-2757.

Birley, A.R., The Roman government of Britain (Oxford 2005).

Bleckmann, B., Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und byzantinischen

Geschichtsschreibung: Untersuchungen zu den nachdionischen Quellen der Chronik des

Johannes Zonaras (München 1992).

Blois, L. de, „Odaenathus and the Roman-Persian war of 252-264 A.D.‟, Talanta 6 (1975) 7-23.

Blois, L. de, The policy of the emperor Gallienus (Leiden 1976).

Blois, L. de, „Plotinus and Gallienus‟, in: A.A.R. Bastiaensen, A. Hilhorst, C.H. Kneepkens,

Fructus Centesimus. Mélanges offerts à Gerard J.M. Bartelink à l’occasion de son

soixante-cinquième anniversaire (Steenbrugge-Dordrecht 1989) 69-82.

Blois, L. de, „Traditional Virtues and New Spiritual Qualities in Third Century Views of Empire,

Emperorship and Practical Politics‟, Mnemosyne 47.2 (1994) 166-176.

Blois, L. de, „Emperor and Empire in the Works of Greek-speaking authors in the Third Century

AD‟, ANRW II, 34, 4 (1998) 3391-3443.

Blois, L. de, „The Perception of Emperor and Empire in Cassius Dio‟s Roman History‟, Ancient

Society 29 (1998-1999) 267-281.

Blois, L. de, „Roman jurists and the crisis of the third century A.D. in the Roman Empire‟, in: L.

de Blois ed., Administration, prosopography and appointment policies in the Roman

Empire. IMEM 1 (Amsterdam 2001) 136-153.

Blois, L. de, „The Crisis of the Third Century A.D. in the Roman Empire: a Modern Myth?‟, in:

L. de Blois, J. Rich (eds.), The Transformation of Economic Life under the Roman

Empire. IMEM 2 (Amsterdam 2002) 204-217.

Blois, L. de, „The military factor in the onset of crisis in the Roman Empire in the third century

AD‟, in: De Blois, L. and Lo Cascio, E. (eds), The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC-

240

AD 476). Economic, Social, Political and Cultural Aspects. IMEM 6 (Leiden and Boston

2007a).

Blois, L. de, „Review of P. Eich, Zur Metamorphose des politischen Systems in der römischen

Kaiserzeit. Die Entstehung einer ‘personalen Bürokratie’ im langen dritten Jahrhundert

(Berlin 2005)‟, Gnomon 79.6 (2007b), 513-517.

Blois, L. de, Een Eeuw van Crisis. Het Romeinse Rijk in de Derde Eeuw na Chr. Afscheidsrede

door prof. dr. L. de Blois (Nijmegen 2007c).

Bodel, J.P., Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from Inscriptions (London 2001).

Boissevain, U.P., C. de Boor, T. Büttner-Wobst (eds.), Excerpta Historica iussi Imp. Constantini

Porphyrogeniti, vol. 3, Excerpta de Insidiis (Berlin 1905).

Boissevain, U.P., C. de Boor, T. Büttner-Wobst (eds.), Excerpta Historica iussi Imp. Constantini

Porphyrogeniti, vol. 4, Excerpta de Sententiis (Berlin 1906).

Borg, B., C. Witschel, „Veränderungen im Repräsentationsverhalten der römischen Eliten

während des 3. Jhs. n. Chr.‟, in: G. Alföldy, S. Panciera (eds.), Inschriftliche Denkmäler

als Medien der Selbstdarstellung in der römischen Welt. (Stuttgart 2001) 47-120.

Boschung, D., W. Eck, Die Tetrarchie: ein neues Regierungssystem und seine mediale

Präsentation. Schriften des Lehr- und Forschungszentrums für die Antiken Kulturen des

Mittelmeerraumes – Centre for Mediterranean Cultures (ZAKMIRA); Band 3 (Wiesbaden

2006).

Boteva, D., „Legati Augusti pro praetore Moesiae Inferioris A.D. 193-217/218‟, ZPE 110 (1996a)

239-247.

Boteva, D., „On the cursus honorum of P. Fu… Pontianus (PIR² F 496), provincial governor of

Lower Moesia‟, ZPE 110 (1996b) 248-252.

Bowersock, G.W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford 1969).

Bowersock, G.W., „Roman senators from the Near East: Syria, Judaea, Arabia, Mesopotamia‟, in:

Epigrafia e Ordine Senatorio II. Tituli 5 (Roma 1982), 651-668.

Brandt, H., „Facts and Fictions: die Historia Augusta und das 3. Jahrhundert‟, in: K.-P. Johne, T.

Gerhardt, U. Hartmann (eds.), Deleto paene imperio Romano: Transformationsprozesse

des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert und ihre Rezeption in der Neuzeit (Stuttgart

2006) 11-24.

Brunt, P.A., „The Administrators of Roman Egypt‟, JRS 65 (1975) 124-147.

241

Brunt, P.A., „Princeps and Equites‟, JRS 73 (1983) 42-75.

Bruun, C.F.M., „The Antonine Plague in Rome and Ostia‟, JRA 16 (2003) 426-434.

Bruun, C.F.M., „Der Kaiser und die stadtrömischen curae: Geschichte und Bedeutung‟, in: A.

Kolb (ed.), Herrschafsstrukturen und Herrschaftspraxis (Berlin 2006) 89-114.

Buraselis, K., Theia Dorea: das göttlich-kaiserliche Geschenk. Studien zur Politik der Severer

und zur constitutio Antoniniana (Vienna 2007).

Bureth, P., „Le préfet d‟Egypte (30 av. J.C.-297 ap. J.C.): État present de la documentation en

1973‟, ANRW II, 10, 1 (1988) 472-502.

Burnand, Y., Primores Galliarum: sénateurs et chevaliers romains originaires de Gaule de la fin

de la République au IIIe siècle (Bruxelles 2005).

Burton, G.P., „The Inheritance of the Consulate in the Antonine Period: A Problem Revisited‟,

Phoenix 49.3 (1995) 218-231.

Burton, G.P., „Review of M. Peachin, Iudex Vice Caesaris: Deputy Emperors and the

Administration of Justice during the Principate (Stuttgart 1996)‟, CR 48.1 (1998),

103-104.

Bury, J.B., „The Provincial List of Verona‟, JRS 13 (1923) 127-151.

Busch, A., „„Militia in urbe‟. The military Presence in Rome, in: L. de Blois, E. Lo Cascio (eds.),

The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC-AD 476). Economic, Social, Political, Religious

and Cultural Aspects. IMEM 6 (Leiden and Boston 2007) 315-341.

Cameron, A. (ed.), Fifty Years of Prosopography. PBA 118 (Oxford-New York 2003).

Campbell, B., „Who Were the „Viri Militares‟?, JRS 65 (1975) 11-31.

Campbell, J.B., The Emperor and the Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 235 (Oxford 1984).

Campbell, B., „War and diplomacy: Rome and Parthia 31 BC-AD 235‟, in: J. Rich, G. Shipley

(eds.) War and Society in the Roman world, (London-New York 1993) 213-240.

Campbell, B., „The Severan Dynasty‟, in: A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and A. Cameron (eds.),

CAH XII. The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337 (second edition, Cambridge 2005a) 1-27.

Campbell, B., „The army‟, in: A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and A. Cameron (eds.), CAH XII. The

Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337 (second edition, Cambridge 2005b) 110-130.

Cannon, A., „The Historical Dimension in Mortuary Expressions of Status and Sentiment‟,

Current Anthropology 30.4 (1989) 437-458.

242

Canto, A.M., „Itálica, patria y ciudad natal de Adriano (31 textos históricos y argumentos contra

"vita hadr." 1, 3)‟, in: Ángeles Alonso Ávila, Santos Crespo Ortiz de Zárate (eds.), Scripta

antique in honorem Ángel Montenegro Duque et José María Blázquez Martínez

(Valladolid 2002) 363-396.

Carlà, F., „Tu tantum praefecti mihi studium et annonam in necessariis locis praebe: Prefettura al

pretorio a annona militarus nel III secolo D.C.‟, Historia 56 (2007) 82-110.

Carrié, J.-M., A. Rousselle, L’Empire romain en mutation des Sévères à Constantin. 192-337

(Paris 1999).

Cébeillac-Gervasoni, M., „Apostilles à une inscription de Portus: T. Messius Extricatus et les

Saborrarii‟, Parola del Passato 34 (1979) 267-277.

Champlin, E., „Notes on the Heirs of Commodus‟, AJPh 100 (1979) 288-306.

Chastagnol, A., „Les préfets du prétoire de Constantin‟, REA 70 (1968) 321-352.

Chastagnol, A., „L‟Histoire Auguste et le rang des préfets du prétoire‟, in: A. Chastagnol (ed.)

Recherches sur l’Histoire Auguste: avec un rapport sur les progress de la Historia

Augusta-Forschung depuis 1963 (Bonn 1970) 39-68.

Chastagnol, A., „La Fin de l‟ordre équestre: Réflexions sur la prosopographie des „derniers‟

chevaliers romains‟, MEFRA 100 (1988) 199-206.

Chastagnol, A., Le Senat Romain à l’Époque Impériale. Recherches sur la composition de

l’assemblée et le statut de ses membres (Paris 1992).

Christol, M., „Une carrière équestre sous le règne de l‟ empereur Gallien‟, Latomus 35 (1976)

866-874.

Christol, M., „La carrière de Traianus Mucianus et l‟origine des protectores‟, Chiron 7 (1977)

394-408.

Christol, M., „Un duc dans une inscription de Termessos (Pisidie). Un témoignage sur les

troubles intérieurs en Asie Mineure romaine au temps de la crise d‟Empire‟, Chiron 8

(1978) 529-540.

Christol, M., „La carrière de Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus‟, REA 83 (1981) 75-81.

Christol, M. „Les réformes de Gallien et la carrière sénatoriale‟, in: Epigrafia e ordine senatorio

I, Tituli 4 (Rome 1982) 143-166.

Christol, M., Essai sur l’évolution des carrières sénatoriales dans la 2e moitié du IIIe siècle

après J.-C. (Paris 1986).

243

Christol, M., L’Empire romain du IIIe siècle: histoire politique (de 192, mort de Commode, à

325, concile de Nicée (Paris 1997).

Christol, M., „L‟ascension de l‟ordre équestre. Un theme historiographique et sa réalité‟, in: S.

Demougin, H. Devijver, M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (eds.), L’ordre équestre. Histoire d’une

aristocratie (IIe siècle av. J.-C. – IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. (Rome 1999) 613-628.

Christol, M., P. Salama, „Une nouvelle inscription d‟Aïoun-Sbiba, concernant l‟insurrection

maurétanniene dite „de 253‟: M(arcus) Aurelius Victor, gouverneur de la Maurétanie

Césarienne‟, CCG 12 (2001) 253-267.

Corbier, M. „Les circonscriptions judiciaires de l‟Italie, de Marc-Aurèle à Aurélien‟, MEFRA 85

(1973) 609-690.

Corbier, M., „Les Familles clarissimes d‟Afrique proconsulaire (I-III siècle)‟, in: Epigrafia e

Ordine Senatorio II. Tituli 5 (Roma 1982) 685-754.

Coriat, J.-P., „Les hommes nouveaus à l‟époque des Sévères, RD 56 (1978) 5-27.

Cosme, P., „À propos de l‟Édit de Gallien‟, in: O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, D. Slootjes (eds.), Crises

and the Roman Empire. IMEM 7 (Leiden-Boston 2007) 97-109.

Crook, J., Consilium Principis. Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian

(New York 1975).

Crook, J.A., Legal Advocacy in the Roman World (Ithaca-New York 1995).

Dahl, R.A., „The concept of power‟, Behavioral Science 2 (1957) 201-215.

Dahl, R.A., „Power‟, in: D.L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol.

12 (New York-London 1968) 405-415.

Damerau, P., Kaiser Claudius II. Gothicus (268-270 n. Chr.) (Leipzig 1934).

Degrassi, A., I Fasti Consolari dell’Impero Romano dal 30 av. Cr. al 613 d. Cr. (Roma 1952).

Demandt, A., A. Goltz, H. Schlange-Schöningen, Diokletian und die Tetrarchie: Aspekte einer

Zeitenwende (Berlin 2004).

Demougin, S., L’ordre équestre sous les Julio-Claudiens (Paris 1988).

Demougin, S., H. Devijver, M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (eds.), L’ordre équestre. Histoire d’une

aristocratie (IIe siècle av. J.-C. – IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. (Rome 1999).

Desbordes, O., S. Ratti (eds.), Histoire Auguste. Vol. 4.2: Vies des deux Valériens et des deux

Galliens (Paris 2000).

244

Dessau, H., „Über Zeit und Persönlichkeit der SHA‟, Hermes 24 (1889) 337-392.

Develin, R., „The army pay rises under Severus and Caracalla, and the question of annona

militaris‟, Latomus 30 (1971) 687-695.

Devijver, H., Prosopographia militiarum equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum. 6

vols. (Leuven 1976-2001).

Devijver, H., The Equestrian Officers of the Roman Imperial Army. Vol. 1 (Amsterdam 1989).

Devijver, H., The Equestrian Officers of the Roman Imperial Army. Vol. 2 (Stuttgart 1992).

Dietz, K.-H., Senatus contra principem. Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Opposition gegen

Kaiser Maximinus Thrax (Munich 1980).

Dietz, K.-H., „Caracalla, Fabius Cilo und die Urbaniciani. Unerkannt gebliebene Suffektkonsuln

des Jahres 212 n. Chr.‟, Chiron 13 (1983) 381-404.

Dobson, B., „The significance of the Centurion and „Primipilaris‟ in the Roman Army and

Administration‟, in: ANRW II, 1 (Berlin/New York 1974) 392-434.

Dobson, B., Die Primipilares. Entwicklung und Bedeutung, Laufbahn und Persönlichkeiten eines

römischen Offiziersranges (Bonn 1978).

Dobson, B., „The “Rangordnung” of the Roman Army‟, in: D.M. Pippidi, Actes VII Congrès

International d' épigraphie Grecque et Latine (Bucarest-Paris 1979) 191-204.

Dobson, B., D.J. Breeze, „The Rome Cohorts and the Legionary Centurionate‟, in: Breeze, D.J.,

B. Dobson, Roman Officers and Frontiers (Stuttgart 1993) 88-112.

Dobson, B., „The Primipilares in Army and Society‟, in: G. Alföldy, B. Dobson, W. Eck (eds.),

Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Gedenkschrift für Eric Birley

(Stuttgart 2000) 139-152.

Dondin-Payre, M., Exercice du pouvoir et continuité gentilice: les Acilii Glabriones du IIIe siècle

av. J.-C. au Ve siècle ap. J.-C. (Rome 1993).

Drexhage, R., Untersuchungen zum römischen Osthandel (Bonn 1988).

Drinkwater, J.F., The Gallic Empire: separatism and continuity in the North-Western provinces

of the Roman Empire, AD 260-274. Historia Einzelschriften 52 (Stuttgart 1987).

Drinkwater, J.F., The Alamanni and Rome, 213-496 (Caracalla to Clovis) (Oxford 2007).

Duncan-Jones, R., „Praefectus Mesopotamiae et Osrhoenae‟, CP 64.4 (1969) 229-233.

Duncan-Jones, R.P., „The Heritability of the Consulship. Review of K. Hopkins, Death and

Renewal (Cambridge 1983)‟, CR 34.2 (1984) 270-274.

245

Duncan-Jones, R.P., „The Impact of the Antonine Plague‟, JRA 9 (1996) 108-136.

Duncan-Jones, R.P., „Economic change and the transition to Late Antiquity‟, in: S. Swain and M.

Edwards (eds.), Approaching Late Antiquity. The Transformation from Early to Late

Empire (Oxford 2004) 20-52.

Durry, M., Les Cohortes prétoriennes (second edition Paris 1968).

Dušanić, S., „The end of the Philippi‟, Chiron 6 (1976) 427-439.

Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian: prosopographische Untersuchungen mit

Einschluss der Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der Statthalter. Vestigia 13 (München 1970).

Eck, W., „Review of A. Dobó, Die Verwaltung der römischen Provinz Pannonien von Augustus

bis Diocletianus (Amsterdam 1968)‟, BJ 171 (1971) 743-750.

Eck, W., „Über die prätorischen Prokonsulate in der Kaiserzeit. Eine quellenkritische

Überlegung‟, Zephyrus 23/24 (1972/1973) 233-260.

Eck, W., „Miscellanea Consularia‟, ZPE 25 (1977) 227-240.

Eck, W., „Die Präsenz senatorischer Familien in den Städten des Imperium Romanum bis zum

späten 3. Jahrhundert‟, in: W. Eck, H. Galsterer and H. Wolff (eds.), Studien zur antiken

Sozialgeschichte. Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff (Köln 1980) 283-322.

Eck, W., „Miscellanea Prosopographica‟, ZPE 42 (1981) 227-256.

Eck, W., „Review of P. Herrmann, TAM 5. Tituli Lydiae. Fasciculus 1. Regio Septentrionalis ad

Orientem Vergens (Wien 1981)‟, BJ 183 (1983) 853-857.

Eck, W., Die Statthalter der germanischen Provinzen vom 1. – 3. Jahrhundert. Epigraphische

Studien 14 (Bonn 1985).

Eck, W., „Der Kaiser, die Führungsschichten und die Administration des Reiches (von

Vespasianus bis zum Ende der Antoninischen Dynastie),‟ in: W. Eck, Die Verwaltung des

Römischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit. Ausgewählte und erweiterte Beiträge. Band

2 (Basel 1998) 3-106.

Eck, W., L’Italia nell’impero Romano. Stato e amministrazione in epoca imperiale (Bari 1999).

Eck, W., „The Growth of Administrative Posts‟, in: A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and D. Rathbone

(eds.), CAH XI. The High Empire, A.D. 70-192 (second edition, Cambridge 2000) 238-

265.

246

Eck, W., „Imperial Administration and Epigraphy: In Defence of Prosopography‟, in: A.K.

Bowman, F. Millar (eds.), Representations of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean

World (Oxford 2002a) 131-152.

Eck, W., „Traian – der Weg zum Kaisertum‟, in: A. Nünnerich-Asmus, Traian: ein Kaiser der

Superlative am Beginn einer Umbruchzeit? (Mainz am Rhein 2002b) 7-20.

Eck, W., „There Are No cursus honorum Inscriptions. The Function of the cursus honorum in

Epigraphic Communication‟, SCI 28 (2009) 79-92.

Eich, P., Zur Metamorphose des politischen Systems in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Die Entstehung

einer ‘personalen Bürokratie’ im langen dritten Jahrhundert (Berlin 2005).

Erdkamp, P., Hunger and the Sword. Warfare and Food Supply in Roman Republican Wars (264-

30 B.C.) (Amsterdam 1998).

Fink, R.O., „Review of L.L. Howe, The praetorian prefect from Commodus to Diocletian (AD

180-305) (Chicago 1942)‟, American Historical Review 48.4 (1943) 770.

Finley, M.I. (ed.), Studies in Ancient Society. Past and Present Series (London 1978).

Finley, M.I., The Ancient Economy (second edition, London 1985).

Fitz, J., „Réflexions sur la carrier de Tib. Claudius Candidus‟, Latomus 25 (1966a) 831-846.

Fitz, J., Die Laufbahn der Statthalter in der römischen Provinz Moesia Inferior (Weimar 1966b).

Fitz, J., Ingenuus et Regalianus (Bruxelles 1966c).

Fitz, J., „La carrière de L. Valerius Valerianus‟, Latomus 28 (1969) 126-140.

Fitz, J., „Die Laufbahn des Aelius Triccianus‟, AAntHung 26 (1978) 21-27.

Flaig, E., „Für eine Konzeptionalisierung der Usurpation im Spätrömischen Reich‟, in: F.

Paschoud, J. Szidat (eds.), Usurpationen in der Spätantike (Stuttgart 1997) 15-34.

French, D.H., „Milestones of Pontus, Galatia, Phrygia, and Lycia‟, ZPE 43 (1981) 149-174.

Frier, B.W., „Law on the installment plan. Review of Honoré, Ulpian‟, Michigan Law Review 82.

4 (1984) 857-864.

Frye, R.N., „The Sassanians‟, in: A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and A. Cameron (eds.), CAH XII.

The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337 (second edition, Cambridge 2005) 461-480.

Frye, R.N., The History of Ancient Iran (München 1984).

Garnsey, P., R. Saller, The Roman Empire. Economy, Society and Culture (London 1987).

247

Gawlikowski, M., „Les princes de Palmyre‟, Syria 62 (1985) 251-261.

Gerov, B., „La carriera militare di Marciano, generale di Gallieno‟, Athenaeum 43 (1965) 333-

354.

Giles, A.F., „Review of L.L. Howe, The praetorian prefect from Commodus to Diocletian (AD

180-305) (Chicago 1942)‟, CR 57.3 (1943) 120-121.

Glas, T., U. Hartmann, „Die Provinzverwaltung‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt

(eds.), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im

3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008) band I, 641-672.

Goldhamer, H., E.A. Shills, „Types of power and status‟, American Journal of Sociology 45.2

(1939) 171-182.

Goltz, A., U. Hartmann, „Valerianus und Gallienus‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt

(eds.), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im

3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008) band I, 223-295.

Goltz, A., „Die Völker an der nordwestlichen Reichsgrenze‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T.

Gerhardt (eds.), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen

Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008a) band I, 427-447.

Goltz, A., „Die Völker an der mittleren und nordöstlichen Reichsgrenze‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U.

Hartmann, T. Gerhardt (eds.), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des

Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008b) band I, 449-464.

Goodman, M, „Judaea‟, in: A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and D. Rathbone (eds.), CAH XI. The

High Empire, A.D. 70-192 (second edition, Cambridge 2000) 664-678.

Graham, A.J., „The division of Britain‟, JRS 56 (1966) 92-107.

Graham, A.J., „The limitations of prosopography in Roman imperial history (with special

reference to the Severan period), ANRW II, 1 (1974) 136-157.

Guidanti, A., „L‟aristocrazia norditalica tra Antonini e Severi: gli Hedii di Pollentia‟, Simblos 1

(1995) 201-218.

Haegemans, K., Imperial Authority and Dissent. The Roman Empire in A.D. 235-238 (Diss.

Leuven 2005).

Haensch, R., Capita provinciarum: Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der römischen

Kaiserzeit (Mainz am Rhein 1997).

248

Hahn, J., P.M.M. Leunissen, „Statistical Method and Inheritance of the Consulate under the

Early Roman Empire‟, Phoenix 44.1 (1990) 60-81.

Halfmann, H., Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2.

Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Göttingen 1979).

Halfmann, H., „Zwei syrische Verwandte des severischen Kaiserhauses‟, Chiron 12 (1982) 217-

235.

Halfmann, H., Itinera principum: Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen

Reich (Stuttgart 1986).

Halloff, K., „Die Inschrift von Skaptopara. Neue Dokumente und neue Lesungen‟, Chiron 24

(1994) 405-429.

Hammond, M., „Composition of the Senate A.D. 68-235‟, JRS 47 (1957) 74-81.

Hartmann, U., Das palmyrenische Teilreich (Stuttgart 2001).

Hartmann, U., „Die literarischen Quellen‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt (eds.),

Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3.

Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008a) band I, 19-44.

Hartmann, U., „Claudius Gothicus und Aurelianus‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt

(eds.), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im

3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008b) band I, 297-323.

Hartmann, U., „Das palmyrenische Teilreich‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt (eds.),

Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3.

Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008c) band I, 343-378.

Hauken, T., Petition and Response: an Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman Emperors, 181-

249 (Bergen 1998).

Heil, M., „Der Senat‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt (eds.), Die Zeit der

Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n.

Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008a) band II, 715-736.

Heil, M.,„Der Ritterstand‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt (eds.), Die Zeit der

Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n.

Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008b) band II, 737-761.

Hekster, O., Commodus: an Emperor at the Crossroads (Amsterdam 2002).

249

Hekster, O., G. de Kleijn, D. Slootjes (eds.), Crises and the Roman Empire. IMEM 7 (Leiden-

Boston 2007).

Hekster, O., „Fighting for Rome: The Emperor as a Military Leader‟, in: L. de Blois, E. Lo

Cascio (eds.), The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC-AD 476). Economic, Social,

Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects. IMEM 6 (Leiden and Boston 2007) 91-105.

Hekster, O., Rome and its Empire, AD 193-284 (Edinburgh 2008).

Hennig, D., L. Aelius Seianus. Untersuchungen zur Regierung des Tiberius. Vestigia 21

(München 1975).

Herrmann, P., Hilferufe aus römischen Provinzen: ein Aspekt der Krise des römischen Reiches im

3. Jhdt. n. Chr.: vorgelegt in der Sitzung von 23. Juni 1989 (Göttingen 1990).

Herrmann, P., „Die Karriere eines prominenten Juristen aus Thyateira‟, Tyche 12 (1997) 111-123.

Hillner, J., „Domus, Family, and Inheritance‟, JRS 93 (2003) 129-145.

Honoré, A.M., Ulpian: Pioneer of Human Rights (second edition, Oxford 2002).

Honoré, A.M., Emperors and Lawyers (second edition, Oxford 1994).

Hope, V., „Status and Identity in the Roman World‟, in: J. Huskinson (ed.), Experiencing Rome.

Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire (London 2000) 125-152.

Hopkins, K., „Élite Mobility in the Roman Empire‟, in: M.I. Finley (ed.), Studies in Ancient

Society (London 1978) 103-120.

Hopkins, K., Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in Roman History, Vol. 2 (Cambridge

1983).

Horster, M., „The Emperor‟s Family on Coins (Third Century): Ideology of Stability in Times of

Unrest‟, in: in: O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, D. Slootjes (eds.), Crises and the Roman Empire.

IMEM 7 (Leiden and Boston 2007) 291-309.

Howe, L.L., The praetorian prefect from Commodus to Diocletian (AD 180-305) (Chicago 1942).

Huskinson, J. (ed.), Experiencing Rome. Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire

(London 2000).

Huttner, U., „Von Maximinus Thrax bis Aemilianus‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt

(eds.), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im

3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008) band I, 161-221.

Jacques, F., „Les curateurs des cités africaines au IIIe siècle‟, ANRW II, 10, 2 (1982) 62-135.

250

Jacques, F., „L‟ordine senatorio attraverso la crisi del III secolo‟, in: A. Giardina (ed.), Società

romana e impero tardo-antico (Bari 1986) 81-225.

Jehne, M., „Überlegungen zur Chronologie der Jahre 259–261 n. Chr. im Lichte der neuen

Postumus-Inschrift aus Augsburg‟, Bayrische Vorgeschichtsblätter 61 (1996) 185–206.

Johne, K.-P., Kaiserbiographie und Senatsaristokratie: Untersuchungen zur Datierung und

sozialen Herkunft der Historia Augusta (Berlin 1976).

Johne, K.-P., T. Gerhardt, U. Hartmann (eds.), Deleto paene imperio Romano:

Transformationsprozesse des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert und ihre Rezeption in

der Neuzeit (Stuttgart 2006).

Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt (eds.), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und

Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin

2008).

Johne, K.-P., „Das Kaisertum und die Herrscherwechsel‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T.

Gerhardt (eds.), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen

Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008) band I, 583-632.

Jones, T.B., „Review of C.B. Starr Jr., The Roman Imperial Navy, 31 BC-AD 324 (Ithaca 1941)‟,

American Historical Review 47.4 (1942) 829-830.

Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: a Social Economic and Administrative

Survey. 4 vols. (Oxford 1964).

Jong, J.H.M. de, Emperors in Egypt. The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial

Power in Greek Papyrus Texts from Egypt, AD 193-284 (Diss. Nijmegen 2006).

Jördens, A., Statthalterliche Verwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Studien zum praefectus

Aegypti (Stuttgart 2009).

Kajanto, I., The Latin Cognomina (Helsinki 1965).

Kehne, P., „War- and Peacetime Logistics‟, in: P. Erdkamp (ed.), A Companion to the Roman

Army, (Malden, MA 2007) 323-338.

Kettenhofen, E., Die römisch-persischen Kriege des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. nach der Inschrift

Šāhpuhrs (Wiesbaden 1982).

Kettenhofen, E., „Beobachtungen zum 1. Buch der Néa Historía des Zosimus‟, Byzantion 63

(1993) 404-415.

251

Keyes, C.W., The rise of the equites in the third century of the Roman Empire (Princeton 1915).

Kienast, D., Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie (second

edition, Darmstadt 1996).

Kolb, A., Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich (Berlin 2000).

Kolb, F., Literarische Beziehungen zwischen Cassius Dio, Herodian und der Historia Augusta

(Bonn 1972).

König, I., Die gallischen Usurpatoren von Postumus bis Tetricus (München 1981).

König, I., „Die Postumus-Inschrift aus Augsburg‟, Historia 46 (1997) 341-354.

Körner, C., Philippus Arabs. Ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des antoninisch-severischen

Prinzipats (Berlin/New York 2002).

Kreucher, G., Der Kaiser Marcus Aurelius Probus und seine Zeit (Stuttgart 2003).

Krieckhaus, A., Senatorische Familien und ihre Patriae (1./2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Studien zur

Geschichtsforschung des Altertums 14 (Hamburg 2006).

Kunkel, W., Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen (second edition, Cologne-

Vienna 1967).

Kunkel, W., An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History (translated into English

by J.M. Kelly, second edition Oxford 1973).

Laistner, M.L.W., „Review of L.L. Howe, The praetorian prefect from Commodus to Diocletian

(AD 180-305) (Chicago 1942)‟, CP 38.4 (1943) 277-278.

Last, H. „Review of L.L. Howe, The praetorian prefect from Commodus to Diocletian (AD 180-

305) (Chicago 1942)‟, JRS 34 (1944) 121-125.

Le Glay, M., „L‟administration centrale de la province de Numidie de Septime-Sévère à Gallien‟,

Antiquités africaines 27 (1991) 83-92.

Lendon, J.E., Empire of Honour. The Art of Government in the Roman World (Oxford 1997).

Leunissen, P.M.M., Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander

(180-235 n. Chr.): Prosopografische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Elite im

Römischen Kaiserreich (Amsterdam 1989).

Levick, B., Tiberius the Politician (London 1976).

Levick, B., Julia Domna. Syrian Empress (London-New York 2007).

252

Levy, E., Pauli Sententiae. A Palingenesia of the Opening Titles as a Specimen of Research in

West Roman Vulgar Law (Ithaca 1945).

Lewis, N., „Review of L.L. Howe, The praetorian prefect from Commodus to Diocletian (AD

180-305) (Chicago 1942)‟, Classical Journal 40.9 (1945) 557-558.

Lidell, H.G., R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (ninth edition, Oxford 1996).

Liebeschuetz, W., „Was there a crisis in the third century?‟, in: O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, D.

Slootjes (eds.), Crises and the Roman Empire. IMEM 7 (Leiden and Boston 2007) 11-20.

Lo Cascio, E., „The Emperor and his Administration‟, in: A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and A.

Cameron (eds.), CAH XII. The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337 (second edition,

Cambridge 2005) 131-183.

Loriot, X., „Les premières anneés de la grande crise du IIIe siècle de l‟avènement de Maximin le

Thrace (235) à la mort de Gordien III (244)‟, ANRW II, 2 (1975) 657-787.

Luther, A., „Das gallischen Sonderreich‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt (eds.), Die

Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3.

Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008) band I, 325-341.

MacMullen, R., „The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire‟, AJPh 103.3 (1982) 233-246.

MacMullen, R., „Frequency of inscriptions in Roman Lydia‟, ZPE 65 (1986) 237-238.

Magioncalda, A., „Testimonianze sui prefetti di Mesopotamia (da Settimio Severo a

Diocleziano)‟, SDHI 158 (1982) 167-238.

Malcus, B., „Notes sur la revolution du système administrative romain au IIIe siècle‟, Opuscula

Romana 7 (1969) 213-237.

Manders, E., Coining Images of Power. Patterns in the Representation of Roman Emperors on

Imperial Coinage, A.D. 193-284 (Diss. Nijmegen 2008).

Martin, G., Dexipp von Athen: Edition, Übersetzung und begleitende Studien (Tübingen 2006).

Mattern, S.P., Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate (Berkeley 1999).

Mennen, I., „The Image of an Emperor in Trouble: Legitimation and Representation of Power by

Caracalla‟, in: L. de Blois, P. Funke, J. Hahn (eds.), The Impact of Imperial Rome on

Religions, Ritual and Religious Life in the Roman Empire. IMEM 5 (Leiden and Boston

2006) 253-267.

253

Mennen, I., „The Caesonii in the Third Century AD: The Impact of Crises on Senatorial Status

and Power‟, in: O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, D. Slootjes (eds.), Crises and the Roman

Empire. IMEM 7 (Leiden and Boston 2007) 111-124.

Meyer, E.A., „Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: the Evidence of Epitaphs‟,

JRS 80 (1990) 74-96.

Millar, F. „P. Herennius Dexippus: The Greek world and the third-century invasions‟, JRS 59

(1969) 13-29.

Millar, F., The Roman Empire and its neighbours (second edition, London 1981).

Millar, F., „Italy and the Roman Empire: Augustus to Constantine‟, Phoenix 40.3 (1986) 295-

318.

Millar, F., „The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: a Study of Cultural Relations‟ in: H. Solin, M.

Kajava (eds.), Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History: proceedings of

a colloquium at Tvärminne, 2-3 October 1987 (Helsinki 1990) 7-58.

Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC-AD 337) (second edition, London 1992).

Millar, F., The Roman Near East, 31 BC-AD 337 (Cambridge, MA-London 1993).

Millar, F., „The Greek East and Roman Law: the Dossier of M. Cn. Licinius Rufinus‟, JRS 89

(1999) 90-108.

Millar, F., Rome, the Greek world, and the East. Volume 2. Government, society, and culture in

the Roman Empire. H.M. Cotton, G.M. Rogers (eds.) (Chapel Hill 2004).

Mitchell, S., Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor. Vol. 1. The Celts and the Impact of

Roman Rule (Oxford 1993).

Mitchell, S., „The Administration of Roman Asia from 133 BC to AD 250‟, in: W. Eck (ed.),

Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1.

bis 3. Jahrhundert (München 1999).

Mitthof, F., Annona militaris. Die Heeresversorgung im spätantiken Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur

Verwaltungs- und Heeresgeschichte des Römischen Rieches im 3. Bis 6. Jahrhundert

(Florence 2001).

Mommsen, Th., Römisches Staatsrecht. 3 volumes (third edition, Leipzig 1887).

Mommsen, T., P. Krueger, A. Watson, The Digest of Justinian. 4 vols. (revised edition,

Philadelphia 1998).

Mosshammer, A.A. (ed.), Georgii Syncelli Ecloga Chronographica (Leipzig 1984).

254

Mrozek, S., „À propos de la repartition chronologique des inscriptions Latines dans le Haut-

Empire‟, Epigraphica 35 (1973) 113-118.

Mrozek, S., „À propos de la repartition chronologique des inscriptions Latines dans le Haut-

Empire‟, Epigraphica 50 (1988) 61-64.

Mullens, H.G., „The Revolt of the Civilians A.D. 237-8‟, Greece and Rome 17 (1948) 65-77.

Mynors, R.A.B., C.E.V. Nixon, B. Saylor Rodgers, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: the

Panegyrici latini (Berkeley 1994).

Nagy, T., „Die Inschrift des Legionspräfekten P. Aelius Aelianus aus Ulcisia Castra‟, Klio 46

(1965) 339-350.

Nicols, J., „Prefects, Patronage and the Administration of Justice‟, ZPE 72 (1988) 201-217.

Noreña, C.F., „Review of O. Hekster, R. Fowler, Imaginary Kings: Royal Images in the Ancient

Near East, Greece and Rome. Oriens et Occidens 11 (Stuttgart 2005), Bryn Mawr

Classical Review 2006.07.06.

Novak, D.M., A late Roman Aristocratic Family. The Anicii in the third and fourth centuries

(Chicago 1976).

Oliver, J.H., Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri

(Philadelphia 1989).

Paschoud, F., Zosime, Histoire Nouvelle (Paris 1971-1989).

Paschoud, F., Histoire Auguste. Vies d’Aurélien et de Tacite, 5, 1 (Paris 1996).

Passerini, A., Le Coorti pretorie (Rome 1939).

Peachin, M., Roman imperial titulature and chronology, AD 235-284 (Amsterdam 1990).

Peachin, M., „Philip‟s Progress: from Mesopotamia to Rome in A.D. 244‟, Historia 40.3 (1991)

331-342.

Peachin, M., „Consultation with a magistrate in Justinian‟s Code‟, CQ 42 (1992) 448-458.

Peachin, M., Iudex vice Caesaris. Deputy emperors and the Administration of Justice during the

Principate (Stuttgart 1996).

Peachin, M., G. Preuss, „Die Karriere des Aspasius Paternus?‟, ZPE 116 (1997) 176-192.

255

Petersen, H., „Senatorial and Equestrian Governors in the Third Century A.D.‟, JRS 45 (1955)

47-57.

Pfang, S.E., The Marriage of Roman soldiers (13 B.C.-A.D. 235): law and family in the imperial

army (Leiden-Boston 2001).

Pflaum, H.-G., Les procurateurs équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain (Paris 1950).

Pflaum, H.-G., Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain, 1-4 (Paris

1960-1961); Supplément (Paris 1982).

Pflaum, H.-G., „Du nouveau sur les Agri Decumates à la lumière d‟un fragment de Capoue‟, BJ

163 (1963), 224-237.

Pflaum, H.-G., „Titulature et rang social sous le Haut-Empire‟, in: Recherches sur les structures

sociales dans l’antiquité classique, Caen 25-26 avril 1969 (Paris 1970) 159-185.

Pflaum, H.-G., „Zur Reform des Kaisers Gallienus‟, Historia 25 (1976) 109-117.

Pflaum, H.-G., Les Fastes de la Province de Narbonnaise (Paris 1978).

Pflaum, H.-G., „La Carrière de C. Iulius Avitus Alexianus, Grand-père de deux Empereurs‟, REL

57 (1979) 298-314.

Piso, I., „La place de la Dacie dans les carrières sénatoriales‟, in: Epigrafia e ordine senatorio

I, Tituli 4, (Roma 1982) 369-395.

Piso, I., An der Nordgrenze des Römischen Reiches: ausgewählte Studien (1972-2003) (Stuttgart

2005).

Potter, D.S., Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire: a Historical Commentary

on the ‘Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle’ (Oxford 1990).

Potter, D.S., The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180-395 (London 2004).

Purcell, N., „The apparitores: a study on social mobility‟, Papers of the British School at Rome

51 (1983) 125-173.

Rankov, N.B., „M. Oclatinius Adventus in Britain‟, Britannia 18 (1987) 243-249.

Rees, R., Diocletian and the Tetrarchy. Debates and Documents in Ancient History (Edingburgh

2004).

Reinhold, M., „Review of L.L. Howe, The praetorian prefect from Commodus to Diocletian (AD

180-305) (Chicago 1942)‟, Classical Weekly, 36.19 (1943) 223-224.

256

Reinmuth, O.W., The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian, Klio Beiheft 34 (Leipzig

1935).

Reinmuth, O.W., „Review of L.L. Howe, The praetorian prefect from Commodus to Diocletian

(AD 180-305) (Chicago 1942)‟, American Journal of Philology, 65.2 (1944) 196-200.

Rémondon, R., La Crise de l’Empire romain: de Marc Aurèle à Anastase (second edition, Paris

1970).

Rémy, B., „La carrière de Q. Aradius Rufinus Optatus Aelianus‟, Historia 25 (1976) 458-477.

Rémy, B., „Ornati et ornamenta quaestoria, praetoria et consularia sous le Haut-Empire romain‟,

REA 78-79 (1976-1977) 160-198.

Rémy, B., Dioclétien et la tétrarchie (Paris 1998).

Ridley, R.T., Zosimus: New History (Sydney 1982).

Robert, J. and L. Robert, „Bulletin Épigraphique‟, in: Revue des etudes grecques: publication

trimestrielle de l’Association pour l’Encouragement des Études Grecques 64 (1951)

119-216.

Roth, J.P., The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 BC-AD 235). Columbia Studies in the

Classical Tradition 23 (Leiden-Boston-Köln 1999).

Roueché, C., „Rome, Asia and Aphrodisias in the Third Century‟, JRS 71 (1981) 103-120.

Roueché, C., Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity. JRS Monographs 5 (London 1989).

Saller, R.P., „Promotion and Patronage in Equestrian Careers‟, JRS 70 (1980) 44-63.

Salomies, O., Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (Helsinki 1992).

Salway, B., „A fragment of Severan history: the unusual career of …atus, praetorian prefect of

Elagabalus‟, Chiron 27 (1997) 127-153.

Salway, B., „Prefects, patroni, and decurions: a new perspective on the Album of Canusium‟, in:

A.E. Cooley, The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy (London 2000) 115-171.

Salway, B., „Equestrian prefects and the award of senatorial honours from the Severans to

Constantine‟, in: A. Kolb (ed.), Herrschafsstrukturen und Herrschaftspraxis (Berlin 2006)

115-135.

Saria, B., „Zur Geschichte des Kaisers Regalianus‟, Klio 50 (1937) 352-354.

Saxer, R. Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des römischen Kaiserheeres von Augustus bis

Diokletian. Epigraphische Studien 1 (Köln 1967).

257

Scheidel, W., „A Model of Demographic and Economic Change in Roman Egypt after the

Antonine Plague‟, JRA 15.1 (2002) 97-114.

Scott, S.P. (ed.), The Civil Law. Translated from the original Latin (revised edition, New York

1973).

Settipani, C., Continuité gentilice et continuité familial dans les familles sénatoriales romaines à

l’époque imperial: mythe et réalité. Prosopographica et genealogica, vol. 2 (Oxford

2000).

Settipani. C., Continuité gentilice et continuité familial dans les familles sénatoriales romaines à

l’époque imperial: mythe et réalité. Addenda I-III (Oxford 2000-2002).

Sherwin-White, A.N., „The tabula of Banasa and the Constitutio Antoniniana‟, JRS 63 (1973) 86-

98.

Sidebottom, H., „Herodian‟s historical methods and understanding of history‟, ANRW II, 34, 4

(1998) 2775-2836.

Simon, H.-G., „Die Reform der Reiterei unter Kaiser Gallien‟, in: W. Eck, H. Galsterer, H. Wolff

(eds.), Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte. Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff (Köln-Wien

1980) 435-452.

Slootjes, D., „Senatorial Families. Review of A. Krieckhaus, Senatorische Familien und ihre

Patriae (1./2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Hamburg 2006)‟, CR 57.2 (2007) 479-480.

Slootjes, D., „Local Potentes in the Roman Empire: a New Approach to the Concept of Local

Elites‟, Latomus 68. 2 (2009) 416-432.

Smith, R.E., „The Army Reforms of Septimius Severus‟, Historia 21 (1972) 481-500.

Smith, R.E., „Dux, praepositus‟, ZPE 36 (1979) 263-278.

Sommer, M., Die Soldatenkaiser (Darmstadt 2004).

Speidel, M.A., „Roman army pay scales‟, JRS 82 (1992) 87-106.

Speidel, M.P., „Valerius Valerianus in charge of Septimius Severus‟ Mesopotamian campaign‟,

CP 80.4 (1985) 321-326.

Speidel, M.P., „Gallienus and the Marcomanni‟, in: K.-P. Johne, T. Gerhardt, U. Hartmann

(eds.), Deleto paene imperio Romano: Transformationsprozesse des Römischen Reiches

im 3. Jahrhundert und ihre Rezeption in der Neuzeit (Stuttgart 2006) 73-80.

258

Speidel, M.P., „Das Heer‟, in: Johne, K.-P., U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt (eds.), Die Zeit der

Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n.

Chr. (235-284) (Berlin 2008) band I, 673-690.

Stein, A., Die Legaten von Moesien (Budapest 1940).

Stein, A., Der römische Ritterstand: ein Beitrag zur Sozial- und Personengeschichte des

römischen Reiches (second edition, München 1963).

Stein, A., Die Präfekten von Ägypten in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Bern 1950).

Strobel, K., Das Imperium Romanum im "3. Jahrhundert". Modell einer historischen Krise?: zur

Frage mentaler Strukturen breiterer Bevölkerungsschichten in der Zeit von Marc Aurel

bis zum Ausgang des 3. Jh. n. Chr. Historia Einzelschriften 75 (Stuttgart 1993).

Strobel, K., „Strategy and Army Structure between Septimius Severus and Constantine the

Great‟, in: Erdkamp, P. (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Army (Malden, MA 2007) 267-

285.

Swain, S., M. Edwards (eds.), Approaching Late Antiquity: the Transformation from Early to

Late Empire (Oxford 2004).

Syme, R., „Hadrian and Italica‟, JRS 54 (1964) 142-149.

Syme, R., „People in Pliny‟, JRS 58 (1968) 135-151.

Syme, R., Emperors and Biography. Studies in the Historia Augusta (Oxford 1971).

Syme, R., Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford 1986).

Syme, R., „The Jurists approved by Antoninus Pius‟, in K. Rosen (ed.), Bonner Historia-Augusta-

Colloquium. Beiträge zur Historia-Augusta-Forschung. Antiquitas. Reihe 4 (Bonn 1991)

201-217.

Syme, R., The Provincial at Rome and Rome and the Balkans 80 BC – AD 14 (ed. by A.R.

Birley) (Exeter 1999).

Tacoma, L.E., Fragile Hierarchies: the Urban Elites of Third Century Roman Egypt (Leiden

2006).

Talbert, R.J.A., The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton, New Jersey 1984).

Talbert, R.J.A., „The Senate and senatorial and equestrian posts‟, in: A.K. Bowman, E. Champlin,

A. Lintott (eds.), CAH X. The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69 (second edition,

Cambridge 1996) 324-343.

259

Thomasson, B.E., „Zur Laufbahn einiger Statthalter des Prinzipats‟, Opuscula Romana 15 (1985)

109-141.

Thomasson, B.E., Laterculi Praesidum, I-III (Göteborg 1972-1990).

Thomasson, B.E., Fasti Africani: senatorische und ritterliche Amtsträger in den römischen

Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diokletian (Stockholm 1996).

Timpe, D., Untersuchungen zur Kontinuität des frühen Prinzipats (Wiesbaden 1962).

Todd, M., „The Germanic peoples and Germanic society‟, in: A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and A.

Cameron (eds.), CAH XII. The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337 (second edition,

Cambridge 2005) 440-460.

Toynbee, A.J., Hannibal’s legacy: the Hannibalic war’s effects on Roman life, vol. 1 (London

1965).

Varner, E.R., Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman imperial

Portraiture (Leiden 2004).

Wallace-Hadrill, A., Suetonius. The scholar and his Caesars (second edition, New

Haven/London 1984)

Wallace-Hadrill, A., „The Imperial Court‟, in: A.K. Bowman, E. Champlin, A. Lintott (eds.),

CAH X. The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69 (second edition, Cambridge 1996) 283-308.

Watson, A., Aurelian and the third century (London 1999).

Weaver, P.R.C., Familia Caesaris. A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves

(Cambridge 1972).

Weaver, P.R.C., „Social Mobility in the Early Roman Empire: the Evidence of the Imperial

Slaves‟, in: M.I. Finley (ed.), Studies in Ancient Society (London 1978) 121-140.

Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (translated from Wirtschaft und

Gesellschaft by A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons, New York 1947).

Whitehorne, J., „Petitions to the Centurion: a Question of Locality?‟, Bulletin of the American

Society of Papyrologists 41 (2004) 155-169.

Wilkes, J., „Provinces and frontiers‟, in: A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and A. Cameron (eds.), CAH

XII. The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337 (second edition, Cambridge 2005) 212-268.

260

Witschel, C., Krise, Rezession, Stagnation?: der Westen des römischen Reiches im 3.

Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Frankfurt am Main 1999).

Witschel, C., „Re-evaluating the Roman West in the third c. A.D.‟, JRA 17.1 (2004) 251-281.

Wolfram, H., Die Goten und ihre Geschichte (München 2001).

Zimmermann, M., Kaiser und Ereignis: Studien zum Geschichtswerk Herodians. Vestigia,

Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte, Band 52 (München 1999).

Zwalve, W., „Valerius Patruinus‟ case: Contracting in the Name of the Emperor‟, in: L. de Blois,

P. Erdkamp, O. Hekster (eds.), The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial

Power. IMEM 3 (Amsterdam 2003) 157-169.

Zwalve, W., Beknopte Geschiedenis van het Romeinse recht (Den Haag 2004).

261

SAMENVATTING IN HET NEDERLANDS

De regering van Diocletianus (284-305 na Chr.) wordt vaak beschouwd als een keerpunt in de

Romeinse geschiedenis. Veel bestuurlijke, militaire en financiële hervormingen worden

toegeschreven aan deze keizer. Er is inderdaad een groot verschil tussen het rijksbestuur vanaf

Diocletianus en de manier waarop het rijk werd geregeerd in de tweede eeuw na Chr. De moord

op Commodus, de laatste Antonijnse keizer, luidde een periode in van toenemende instabiliteit,

waarin een groeiend aantal interne en externe militaire dreigingen, financiële problemen,

epidemieën en banditisme, druk uitoefenden op de staatskas en het bestaande administratieve

systeem. In dit onderzoek staat centraal hoe de gebeurtenissen in de periode 193-284 na Chr. het

keizerlijke bestuur en benoemingsbeleid op centraal niveau beïnvloedden en leidden tot

verschuivingen in de machts- en statusverhoudingen tussen de hoogstgeplaatste

vertegenwoordigers van de keizerlijke macht.

Aan de hand van prosopografie heb ik de politieke elite van het Rijk vastgesteld,

bestaande uit de derde-eeuwse keizers, de senatoriale elite en hoge ridders die de keizers dienden

als hoge militaire officiers en hooggeplaatste civiele bestuurders. Een analyse van deze groepen

via hun statusprofielen en de vier machtsdimensies zoals die zijn gedefinieerd door de

politicoloog Dahl (basis, bereik, domein en omvang) heeft aangetoond hoe de verschillende

status- en machtsstructuren in de loop van de derde eeuw veranderden. Door de integratie van

prosopografisch onderzoek in een analytische, sociologische benadering was het, ondanks het feit

dat de bronnen voor de bestudeerde periode niet optimaal zijn, mogelijk om bredere processen te

beschrijven en in hun context te plaatsen. De toepassing van deze methode heeft niet alleen een

aantal stellingen uit eerdere studies bevestigd, maar heeft ook geleid tot nieuwe inzichten over de

historische ontwikkeling van keizerlijk bestuur en sociale hiërarchieën.

Het eerste hoofdstuk beschrijft de ontwikkeling van het keizerschap in de derde eeuw. Dit

hoofdstuk biedt naast een overzicht van recente ideeën over de transformatie van keizerschap,

ook een inleiding op de geschiedenis van het Romeinse Rijk en de problemen waarmee de keizers

in de periode 193-284 na Chr. werden geconfronteerd. Daarnaast worden enkele thema‟s

geïntroduceerd die in latere hoofdstukken aan de orde komen. Het keizerschap was niet langer

voorbehouden aan mannen uit de ordo senatorius die een netwerk in Rome en (bij voorkeur)

enige militaire ervaring hadden; in de loop van de derde eeuw werd de keizerlijke troon bestegen

262

door diverse mannen die op het moment van hun benoeming nog eques (ridder) waren. Met de

toename van het aantal militaire dreigingen steeg ook het belang van militair overwicht als

machtsbasis voor de keizers. Uiteindelijk kwam het keizerschap vanaf 268 in handen van

militaire mannen, geboren in de periferie van het Rijk, die waren opgeklommen tot de ordo

equester. Dynastieke stabiliteit ging verloren als aanvullende machtsbasis, aangezien de keizers

die regeerden na de Severi er niet in slaagden langdurige, succesvolle dynastieën te vestigen. Hoe

fragiel de machtsbasis van de derde-eeuwse keizers was, blijkt wel uit het grote aantal mannen

dat de keizerlijke macht claimde, vooral na de Severische periode.

Aangezien de keizers steeds meer tijd en aandacht moesten besteden aan militaire taken, werd

het bereik van hun macht beperkter: taken die voorheen waren voorbehouden aan de keizers,

kwamen steeds vaker in handen van anderen. In het gunstigste geval droeg de keizer zelf taken

over aan mannen die in zijn plaats (vice Caesaris) moesten handelen, maar in enkele gevallen

namen anderen taken over zonder dat de keizer hierbij betrokken was. Een dieptepunt in dit

proces waren de afscheiding van het Gallische rijk en Palmyra, waarbij de keizers zich

gedwongen zagen delen van het Rijk op te geven, wat hun machtsdomein letterlijk verkleinde. De

afname van de functionaliteit van de keizer droeg bij aan de devaluatie van de keizerlijke

autoriteit.

Bovendien verliep de communicatie tussen de keizer en de senaat steeds moeizamer, niet

alleen doordat keizers steeds minder vaak in Rome verbleven, maar ook doordat het statusprofiel

van de „ridderlijke‟ keizers niet aansloot bij het profiel van de senatoren. De ridderlijke keizers

waren immers niet bekend met de senatoriale manier van communiceren. Daarnaast werden

keizers in toenemende mate omringd door troepen uit de rijksperiferie. Toen vanaf de jaren 260

hoge militaire officieren continu tot keizer werden benoemd, werd het onderscheid tussen keizers

en hun generaals minimaal, met als gevolg dat het steeds lastiger werd voor keizers om hun

macht te legitimeren. Hierdoor werden militaire officieren steeds geduchtere rivalen voor de

keizers. Al met al kan men stellen dat een prioriteitsverschuiving van het centrum naar de

periferie, die zich manifesteerde op diverse niveaus, het machtsevenwicht tussen keizers en de

andere hoge machthebbers ernstig verstoorde.

Hoewel deze prioriteitsverschuiving ook effect had op de positie van op zijn minst een

deel van de senatoren, veroorzaakte het niet de complete sociale transformatie die vaak aan de

derde eeuw wordt toegeschreven. Zoals blijkt uit hoofdstuk 2, slaagde een aantal families binnen

263

de senatoriale elite erin hun positie te behouden of zelfs te verbeteren tijdens de periode van

crises. Deze families, die samen een kerngroep binnen de senaat vormden, waren sterk gebonden

aan Italië en hadden veelal patricische status in de derde eeuw. Hun statusprofiel verschilde niet

veel van de profielen van de mannen die de (patricische) kern van de senaat vormden vóór de

derde eeuw. De senatoriale elite verloor in de derde eeuw gaandeweg wel zijn invloed op militair

gebied aan equites. Vanaf ongeveer 240 werden leden van de senatoriale elite nog slechts zelden

benoemd in provincies met legioenen. Hun machtsbereik beperkte zich dus in toenemende mate

tot niet-militaire, bestuurlijke, juridische en financiële posities. Bovendien werden ze steeds meer

benoemd in regio‟s met een traditioneel hoge status binnen het Rijk, die niet zwaar getroffen

waren door problemen op de lange termijn, zoals Italië (Rome), Africa en Asia. Leden van deze

senatoriale elite families waren als altijd geschikt om zulke relatief vreedzame delen van het Rijk

te besturen: ze waren van hoge afkomst, gecultiveerd en vermogend. Overigens moet de omvang

van hun macht in deze gebieden niet worden onderschat: doordat keizers steeds minder in Rome

en andere relatief vreedzame rijksdelen verbleven, was deze groep in staat zijn positie in deze

gebieden te versterken en er aanzienlijke macht uit te oefenen.

Hoewel hun invloed dus steeds minder op militaire macht was gebaseerd, bleven hun overige

machtsbases intact: hun traditioneel hoge sociale positie en het feit dat ze behoorden tot een

kleine groep die sterk verbonden was met Rome, Italië en met elkaar. Families die deel

uitmaakten van de senatoriale kern streefden ernaar bij deze groep te blijven behoren door

strategische verbintenissen met andere elite families aan te gaan. De mogelijkheden om tot de

kerngroep door te dringen, of zelfs maar tot de senatoriale elite, waren echter beperkt en lijken

niet te zijn vereenvoudigd door de vanaf de tweede eeuw sterk toegenomen sociale mobiliteit.

Prestigieuze topposities bleven dus in handen van (een kerngroep binnen) de senatoriale elite,

zoals voorheen, en werden niet (permanent) overgedragen aan equites. Door zulke senatoren op

deze posities te blijven benoemen, bewezen keizers hen de benodigde eer zonder hen te veel

daadwerkelijke (militaire) macht te geven. Op deze manier hielden keizers de senatoriale elite

families tevreden, wat op zijn beurt bijdroeg aan de legitimatie van hun keizerlijke macht.

Hoofdstuk 3 bespreekt de macht en status van hoge equites. Binnen de ordo equester

kunnen in de bestudeerde periode twee groepen worden onderscheiden die betrokken waren bij

het keizerlijke bestuur op het hoogste niveau: intellectuelen en beroepssoldaten. Zij baseerden

hun macht op heel verschillende factoren. De macht van de intellectuelen uit de Griekse en

264

Romeinse wereld, zoals sofisten en juristen, was voornamelijk gebaseerd op hun kennis en

geleerde reputatie. Deze kwam voort uit hun hoge status op stedelijk en provinciaal niveau. Als

leden van het keizerlijke secretariaat vervulden zij vooral bestuurlijke, juridische en financiële

taken. Militaire bevoegdheden hadden deze intellectuelen nauwelijks; eigenlijk alleen wanneer ze

werden benoemd tot pretoriaans prefect. In dat opzicht was hun rol binnen het keizerlijke bestuur

te vergelijken met die van de senatoriale elite. Echter, waar de senatoriale elite waarschijnlijk

profiteerde van de toenemende afwezigheid van de keizer in het centrum van het Rijk, was de

macht van de intellectuelen sterk afhankelijk van de nabijheid van de keizer en de aandacht die

hij had voor niet-militaire zaken. Het gevolg hiervan was dat, toen de keizers vanaf de jaren 230

gedwongen waren zich te focussen op militaire crises in grensgebieden, de actieve betrokkenheid

van deze groep ridders in het keizerlijke bestuur drastisch werd gereduceerd.

Vanaf de regering van Septimius Severus werden ridders in toenemende mate ingezet als

provinciegouverneurs en militaire commandanten. Veel van deze posities kwamen in handen van

mannen die via een militaire carrière uiteindelijk tot de ridderstand waren doorgedrongen. Deze

beroepssoldaten vormden slechts een minderheid binnen de ordo equester in de eerste en het

grootste deel van de tweede eeuw na Chr., maar in de loop van de derde eeuw werd deze groep

uiteindelijk dominant binnen de ridderstand. Toen vanaf de jaren 230 het aantal militaire

dreigingen toenam, hadden keizers sterk behoefte aan specialisten in militaire tactieken, logistiek

en belastinginning. Zulke mannen werden ofwel opgenomen in het keizerlijke gevolg, of de

keizer of zijn adviseurs kwamen in contact met hen tijdens militaire operaties. Hierdoor groeide

hun invloed binnen het keizerlijke bestuur. Hun macht was vooral gebaseerd op hun militaire

deskundigheid; toegang tot geld en voorraden en de steun van een groot aantal soldaten waren

aanvullende machtsbases. Uiteraard waren militaire taken dominant binnen hun machtsbereik.

Hoeveel macht zij konden uitoefenen verschilde sterk en was afhankelijk van een aantal factoren,

zoals de aanwezigheid en het autoriteitsniveau van andere (militaire) machthebbers in de

omgeving en de middelen die ze tot hun beschikking hadden. De opkomst van deze

beroepssoldaten was fundamenteler voor de veranderingen in de sociaal-politieke hiërarchieën in

de derde eeuw dan de opkomst van de ridderlijke intellectuelen vanaf de tweede eeuw was

geweest, aangezien de machtstoename van de ridders ditmaal ten koste van senatoren ging. Deze

hooggeplaatste militaire specialisten konden bovendien de carrières bevorderen van mannen die

hen in hun werk hadden bijgestaan: personeel van het militaire middenkader (centuriones,

265

primipili, tribuni en prefecti). Aangezien deze mannen van het middenkader in de positie

verkeerden soldaten te beïnvloeden en hun rol in het fiscale en provinciale bestuur steeds

belangrijker werd, konden zij niet langer worden genegeerd in het keizerlijke benoemingsbeleid.

De hierboven beschreven machtsuitbreiding van ridders was echter vaak verhuld als tijdelijke

regeling: veel ridders werden benoemd als agens vice, zogenaamd tijdelijk plaatsvervanger van

een senator.

Een casestudy van de derde-eeuwse praefecti praetorio reflecteert dit proces van

machtsverschuiving van intellectuelen in relatief vreedzame periodes naar beroepsmilitairen in

tijden van militaire crises. Door het in onbruik raken van de praktijk om twee pretoriaanse

prefecten te benoemen in de loop van de derde eeuw, nam de macht van de prefect toe. De

pretoriaanse prefect was alleen ondergeschikt aan de keizer. Het beschikbare bronnenmateriaal

duidt op een toename van competenties en een afnemende noodzaak de keizer tijdens campagnes

te begeleiden. De pretoriaanse prefect trad steeds meer vice Caesaris op, zowel op militair als

niet-militair gebied, daar waar keizerlijke aanwezigheid nodig was maar niet kon worden

gerealiseerd. Uiteindelijk, vanaf de jaren 260, kon de keizer de status van de pretoriaanse prefect

gelijktrekken met zijn hoge machtsniveau door de prefect senatoriale rang en titulatuur toe te

kennen. Prefecten konden op den duur zelfs in de senaat worden opgenomen als consuls, terwijl

ze hun prefectuur bleven uitvoeren. Als gevolg hiervan benaderden zulke pretoriaanse prefecten

waarschijnlijk de status van leden van de senatoriale elite, die op dat moment Italië leken te

domineren als curatores en correctores. Een volledig gelijkwaardige status was dit waarschijnlijk

echter niet. Er zijn aanwijzingen dat een vergelijkbare statusopwaardering optrad voor militaire

professionals: in de loop van de derde eeuw werd de titel vir perfectissimus gangbaarder. Dat

opwaardering van ridderlijke status veel later in werking trad dan de benoeming van ridders op

posities die voorheen aan senatoren waren voorbehouden, kwam wellicht voort uit het feit dat

dergelijke benoemingen oorspronkelijk als tijdelijke oplossingen werden gepresenteerd. In het

algemeen was de veranderende positie van de equites in de derde eeuw dus sterk verbonden met

de veranderende samenstelling van de ordo equester.

In hoofdstuk 4 maken twee casestudy‟s duidelijk hoe de hierboven omschreven

ontwikkelingen in de praktijk de relatie tussen keizers en hun hooggeplaatste militaire officieren

beïnvloedden. Een vergelijking tussen de situatie onder Septimius Severus en Gallienus toont

allereerst dat Gallienus in veel sterkere mate afhankelijk was van zijn militaire officieren dan

266

Severus, omdat Gallienus te maken had met continue militaire conflicten die in verschillende

rijksdelen tegelijkertijd plaatsvonden. Severus kende tijdens zijn regering niet alleen een fase van

absolute vrede, waardoor hij niet continu afhankelijk van zijn officieren was, maar hij was

bovendien degene die in de meeste conflicten het initiatief nam. Gallienus kon slechts reageren

op militaire conflicten die door anderen in gang gezet waren. Een ander verschil is dat onder

Septimius Severus senatoren nog een wezenlijke rol speelden in militaire conflicten. Onder

Gallienus waren senatoren nauwelijks nog betrokken bij militaire gebeurtenissen. Tegen die tijd

was het bestuur van provincies met legioenen grotendeels in handen van ridders gekomen en

daarmee ook het bevel over de in de provincie gestationeerde troepen. Ook waren het onder

Gallienus vooral ridders die optraden als generaal (dux) en keizerlijke raadgevers in militaire

zaken. Onder Severus lagen deze taken nog in handen van senatoren, die indertijd nog enige

militaire ervaring hadden en ook zonder dergelijke ervaring de keizer tot steun konden zijn

dankzij hun rijkdom, hun status, hun invloed in Rome en connecties met andere senatoren.

Senatoren hadden onder Severus dan ook de hoogste militaire posities en ridders dienden meestal

als hun ondergeschikten. Onder Gallienus waren de meeste generaals ridders die opgeklommen

waren vanuit het militaire middenkader. Zij hadden substantiële militaire ervaring, waren bekend

met de oorlogsgebieden en hadden connecties met het middenkader. Deze verandering viel samen

met een stijgende behoefte aan een meer flexibel defensiesysteem. Naast de bijna permanent

ingezette generaals in de bedreigde grensgebieden die vermoedelijk de militaire taken van de

provinciegouverneurs overnamen, is onder Gallienus een groep generaals (vaak dux equitum

genoemd) te traceren die aan het hoofd stond van mobiele eenheden en lokale crises moest

oplossen.

Terwijl militaire ervaring en bekwaamheid steeds relevanter werd vanwege het

toenemende aantal militaire dreigingen, werd senatoriale status steeds minder nagestreefd door

militaire officiers. De praktijk om succesvolle ridders tot de rang van senator te verheffen om ze

vervolgens senatorenposities te laten bekleden was in de jaren 260 niet langer gebruikelijk. Onder

Gallienus werden ridderlijke officiers dus niet langer opgenomen in de ordo senatorius en

senatoren werden niet meer benoemd tot militaire officiers. Hierdoor werd senatoriale steun

minder urgent voor de keizer en kwamen in oorlogsgebieden militaire macht en senatoriale status

steeds verder uit elkaar te liggen.

267

Enkele ontwikkelingen keren steeds terug in dit onderzoek: (1) een prioriteitsverschuiving

van centrum naar periferie, (2) het geleidelijke verdwijnen van het (onvermijdelijk) samenvallen

van status en macht, en (3) impliciete veranderingen in het bestuurlijke systeem. Zoals gezegd

werd lidmaatschap van de senaat dus minder nagestreefd door de nieuwe groep van (militaire)

machtshebbers die geleidelijk dominant werd in de derde eeuw. Deze mentaliteitsverandering

was duidelijk gunstig voor de senatoriale elite die hun macht en status in het centrum van het Rijk

konden behouden. Intussen veranderde de compositie van het keizerlijke gevolg drastisch:

intellectuelen en elite, zowel ridderlijk als senatoriaal, die geen aanzienlijke militaire ervaring

hadden, werden geleidelijk vervangen door militaire professionals die als eenvoudige soldaten

waren begonnen en geleidelijk waren opgeklommen. Zulke specialisten in militaire tactiek,

logistiek en rekwisitie konden uiteindelijk zelfs de keizerlijke macht grijpen. De komst van

ridders als keizers, statusverhoging binnen de ridderorde, voorbeelden van mannen die essentiële

rollen speelden in het keizerlijke bestuur, maar die geen senatoriale rang bereikten of voor wie

verwijzen naar senatoriale rang geen prioriteit leek te zijn, wijzen op een zekere devaluatie van

senatoriale status. Statusverhoging binnen de ridderstand was echter niet alomtegenwoordig: het

was beperkt tot individuele ridders en niet vanzelfsprekend voor alle leden van de ordo.

Evengoed boette senatoriale status niet overal aan betekenis in.

Het is nauwelijks verrassend dat de spanning in machts- en statusverhoudingen

uiteindelijk ontaardde in een berucht conflict in 238 na Chr. tussen de senatoriale elite en de

aanstormende leden van de ordo equester, inclusief keizer Maximinus Thrax. Het is

verbazingwekkender dat er geen bericht is van confrontaties tussen senatoren en ridders in de

tweede helft van de bestudeerde periode. De botsing in 238 voorkwam echter niet dat een

informele scheiding van militaire en civiele taken, een ontwikkeling die onder Septimius Severus

was gestart en vanaf de jaren 230 in een stroomversnelling was geraakt, zich voortzette. Dit

proces resulteerde in de uitsluiting van senatoren van militaire commando‟s onder Gallienus en,

uiteindelijk, een formele splitsing onder Diocletianus.

Na het conflict in 238 kwam Gordianus III aan de macht, die een compromis vormde

tussen de wensen van de soldaten en die van de senaat. Timesitheus werd zijn tweede man. Dat

hij en andere hooggeplaatste ridders niet werden bevorderd tot senatoriale rang kan een resultaat

van het conflict zijn geweest. Hetzelfde geldt voor de voortzetting van de tendens om impliciet

veranderingen in machtsstructuren door te voeren, door ze te presenteren als tijdelijke

268

oplossingen. Of deze machts- en statusverschuivingen subtieler waren en daarom niet werden

opgemerkt door tijdgenoten, of dat het gebrek aan contemporain historiografisch bewijs na 238

onze visie verstoort, blijft onduidelijk. Hoe dan ook, het impliciete karakter van deze

verschuivingen zal ongetwijfeld hebben bijgedragen aan de onduidelijkheid over het bestuur in

de derde eeuw na Chr.

Diocletianus‟ militaire en bestuurlijke hervormingen waren niet zo radicaal als vaak wordt

voorgesteld. Ze lijken vooral te hebben bestaan uit het expliciet maken van zaken die tot dan toe

impliciet gebleven waren. De meeste veranderingen in de sociaal-politieke hiërarchieën vanaf de

vierde eeuw waren een voortzetting van processen die ofwel startten of versnelden in de derde

eeuw. Na enkele generaties werden veranderingen in macht en status kennelijk acceptabeler. Het

feit dat Constantijn er uiteindelijk voor koos om de hooggeplaatste ridders op te nemen in de

senatoriale orde laat echter niet alleen zien hoeveel macht de hoge ridders tegen die tijd hadden,

maar toont ook dat zelfs in de vroege vierde eeuw senatoriale status zijn aantrekkingskracht niet

had verloren en dat men de sentimenten van de senatoren niet kon negeren.

269

CURRICULUM VITAE

Inge Mennen is op 10 maart 1979 te Tilburg geboren. In 1997 behaalde zij haar

gymnasiumdiploma aan het Mill Hill College te Goirle, waarna zij aan de Katholieke Universiteit

Nijmegen (KUN, thans Radboud Universiteit) Griekse en Latijnse Taal en Cultuur ging studeren.

Zij specialiseerde zich in de Oude Geschiedenis en studeerde in 2003 cum laude af op een

scriptie over de presentatie en legitimatie van de macht bij de Romeinse keizers Septimius

Severus en Caracalla. In 2004 voltooide zij de postdoctorale lerarenopleiding aan het Instituut

voor Leraar en School aan de KUN. Direct daarna begon zij in augustus 2004 aan de KUN met

het door NWO gefinancierde promotieonderzoek naar bestuur, benoemingsbeleid en sociale

hiërarchieën in het Romeinse keizerrijk in de periode 193-284 na Chr. Ten behoeve van haar

promotieonderzoek heeft ze verbleven aan de Ruprecht-Karl-Universität te Heidelberg,

Brasenose College te Oxford, het Koninklijk Nederlands Instituut te Rome en New York

University. Naast haar promotieonderzoek heeft ze een docentaanstelling gehad bij de afdeling

Geschiedenis van de Radboud Universiteit.